Weftec SDC 2011 Acton Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion Team University of Guelph Full PDF

WEF STUDENT DESIGN COMPETITION 2011
DESIGN REPORT
Acton Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion

University of Guelph Design Team:
Alexandra Chan
Adam Erb
Cynthia Mason
Julia Veerman

Acton Wastewater Treatment Plant Design Report WEF Student Design Competition 2011

i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Respected members of the WEF Student Design Competition SubCommittee:
Thank you for considering the University of Guelph Design Team submission for the design of the Acton
Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion. Enclosed is our final design report.
We would like to express our utmost gratitude to the following individuals for their support and
assistance throughout the duration of this project:

Dr. Hongde Zhou, P.Eng. - Faculty Advisor
Professor of the School of Engineering University of Guelph

Dave Arsenault, P.Eng. - Consultant Advisor
Project Manager CH2M Hill, Water Business Group

Rafiq Qutub, P.Eng.
Student Design Competition Sub-Committee Chair Water Environment Association of Ontario

Lauren Zuravnsky, P.E.
Design Competition Sub-Committee Chair Water Environment Federation

Please contact us if you require any further information on this project. We appreciate the time, effort,
and consideration you have given us.

Sincerely,
University of Guelph Design Team:
Alexandra Chan
Adam Erb
Cynthia Mason
Julia Veerman


ii
ATTRIBUTION TABLE
Section Adam Alexandra Cynthia Julia
REPORT BODY
Abstract X
Nomenclature X
Introduction X
Process Selection X
Phase 1 Facility Design X X X
Phase 2 Facility Design X
Process Control and Instrumentation X
Construction Staging X X
Economic Evaluation X X
Innovation X
Health and Safety X
Conclusions and Recommendations X
APPENDIX
Drawings X X X X
Interim Report X X X X
Assumptions X X X X
Process Control and Instrumentation X
Modeling X
Cost Estimate X X X
Manufacturer Specification Sheets X
Design Calculations X X X


iii
ABSTRACT
The Regional Municipality of Halton has identified the need to increase the capacity of the Acton WTTP
in two phases to accommodate their population growth projections. A review of the existing facility and
process selection methodology, proposed layout, design of treatment processes, controls and
instrumentation, hydraulic profile evaluation, population analysis, and economic analysis are provided
as part of the Phase 1 preliminary design. The Phase 2 conceptual design includes the layout, scaled
design of treatment processes and controls and instrumentation, and economic evaluation.
The recommended retrofit for Phase 1 is to expand the number of treatment trains for clarification,
disinfection, and anaerobic digestion, and include PFR conventional activated sludge basins with
nitrification, deep bed filter, and belt press. Upgrades will be made to the SCADA, automation, and
electrical system to facilitate the retrofit. The conceptual design includes an additional train for
clarification, filtration and disinfection, and a retrofit of the existing aeration basins to PFR with BNR.
The capital cost for the Phase 1 expansion is estimated at $24M with annual O&M costs of $1.2M, and
the capital cost estimation for the Phase 2 expansion is $12M. The Phase 1 implementation and
construction is expected to last 24 months.


iv
NOMENCLATURE
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand
BNR Biological Nutrient Removal
C of A Certificate of Approval
CH4 Methane
CMMS Computerized Maintenance Management Systems
CN2 Advanced carbon-nitrogen
CNP Carbon-nitrogen-phosphorus
CVC Credit Valley Conservation Authority
CSTR Continuous Stir Tank Reactor
DO Dissolved oxygen
EA Environmental Assessment
F/M Food to microorganism
HRT Hydraulic Retention Time
HVAC Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning
IED Intelligent Electronic Devices
LP/HI Low pressure/high intensity
LP/LI Low pressure/low intensity
MLSS Mixed liquor suspended solids
MOE Ministry of the Environment
MP/HI Medium pressure/high intensity
NO2 Nitrite
NO3 Nitrate
O&M Operations and maintenance
P&ID Process and instrumentation diagram
PC Personal Computer
PFD Process flow diagram
PFR Plug Flow Reactor
PLC Programmable Logic Controller
RAS Return Activated Sludge
RTU Remote Terminal Unit
SCADA Supervisory control and data acquisition
SRT Solids retention time
TP Total phosphorus
TSS Total suspended solids
US EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
UV Ultraviolet
WEAO Water Environment Association of Ontario
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant


v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................................. i
ATTRIBUTION TABLE ..................................................................................................................................... ii
ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................................................... iii
NOMENCLATURE .......................................................................................................................................... iv
1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 1
Scope of Work .......................................................................................................................................... 1
Design Basis .............................................................................................................................................. 2
2 PROCESS SELECTION ............................................................................................................................. 3
3 PHASE 1 FACILITY DESIGN .................................................................................................................... 3
3.1 Wastewater Receiving Station and Headworks .......................................................................... 3
3.2 Primary Clarification .................................................................................................................... 3
3.3 Secondary Treatment .................................................................................................................. 4
3.4 Secondary Clarification ................................................................................................................ 4
3.5 Tertiary Treatment for Phosphorus Removal .............................................................................. 5
3.5.1 Chemical Addition ................................................................................................................... 5
3.5.2 Filtration .................................................................................................................................. 5
3.6 Disinfection System ..................................................................................................................... 6
3.7 Sludge Digestion .......................................................................................................................... 7
3.8 Gravity Belt Press ......................................................................................................................... 8
3.9 Sludge Disposal ............................................................................................................................ 8
3.10 Noise and Odour Control ............................................................................................................. 8
3.11 Hydraulic Profile .......................................................................................................................... 8
3.12 Electrical Upgrades ...................................................................................................................... 9
3.13 Modeling ...................................................................................................................................... 9
4 PHASE 2 FACILITY DESIGN .................................................................................................................... 9
5 PROCESS CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION ................................................................................... 10

vi
5.1 Online Sampling and Control ..................................................................................................... 10
5.2 Manual Grab Sampling .............................................................................................................. 11
6 CONSTRUCTION STAGING .................................................................................................................. 12
6.1 Construction Schedule ............................................................................................................... 12
6.2 Environmental Considerations .................................................................................................. 13
7 ECONOMIC EVALUATION ................................................................................................................... 15
7.1 Capital Cost ................................................................................................................................ 15
7.2 Operations and Maintenance .................................................................................................... 16
8 INNOVATION ...................................................................................................................................... 17
9 HEALTH AND SAFETY .......................................................................................................................... 17
9.1 Engineering Design .................................................................................................................... 17
9.2 Facility Security .......................................................................................................................... 17
9.3 Training ...................................................................................................................................... 17
9.4 Laboratory ................................................................................................................................. 17
9.5 Construction .............................................................................................................................. 17
10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................ 18
11 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................... 19
APPENDIX A DRAWINGS ........................................................................................................................... 22
APPENDIX B INTERIM REPORT ................................................................................................................. 23
APPENDIX C - PROCESS CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION ..................................................................... 41
APPENDIX D MODELING ........................................................................................................................... 46
APPENDIX E - COST ESTIMATE .................................................................................................................... 52
APPENDIX F MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATION SHEETS ........................................................................... 61
APPENDIX G DESIGN CALCULATIONS ....................................................................................................... 69
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Existing and Proposed Acton WWTP Hydraulic Loading ................................................................. 2
Table 2: Design Basis for Annual Average Pollutant Loading........................................................................ 2
Table 3: Existing and Proposed Acton WWTP Effluents Objectives and Limits ............................................ 2

vii
Table 4: Primary Clarifier Design ................................................................................................................... 3
Table 5: Removal Rates of Primary Clarifier ................................................................................................. 4
Table 6: Design Summary for Each New Aeration Tank ............................................................................... 4
Table 7: Secondary Clarifier Design Summary .............................................................................................. 5
Table 8: Alum Dosing Design Summary Table .............................................................................................. 5
Table 9: Dual Media Deep Bed Filtration Design Summary Table ................................................................ 5
Table 10: UV Design Summarization ............................................................................................................. 6
Table 11: Anaerobic Digestion Design Summary (at MDF) ........................................................................... 7
Table 12: Belt Press Summary ....................................................................................................................... 8
Table 13: Phase 2 Conceptual Design with respect to Phase 1 Design ....................................................... 10
Table 14: SCADA Monitoring Summary ...................................................................................................... 11
Table 15: Grab Sample Testing ................................................................................................................... 12
Table 16: Construction Summary ................................................................................................................ 12
Table 17: Population Growth Estimate ....................................................................................................... 24
Table 18: Calculated Flow Rate Estimates .................................................................................................. 25
Table 19: MOE Design Criteria for Primary Sedimentation Tanks .............................................................. 31
Table 20: MOE Design Criteria for Activated-Sludge Aeration Tanks (MOE, 2008). ................................... 32
Table 21: MOE Design Criteria for Secondary Sedimentation Tanks .......................................................... 32
Table 22: Sources of Solid Wastes from Facility ......................................................................................... 33
Table 23: Types of Solids ............................................................................................................................. 33
Table 24: MOE Design Guidelines for Digesters ......................................................................................... 34
Table 25: Comparison of Different Lamp Types ......................................................................................... 35
Table 26: Gravity Belt Press Design Considerations ................................................................................... 36
Table 27: Biological Treatment Decision Matrix ......................................................................................... 37
Table 28: Sludge Dewatering Decision Matrix ............................................................................................ 38
Table 29: Sludge Disposal Decision Matrix ................................................................................................. 38
Table 30: Phosphorus Removal Decision Matrix ........................................................................................ 39
Table 31: SCADA Decision Matrix ............................................................................................................... 40
Table 32: Regular Maintenance .................................................................................................................. 45
Table 33: Model Design Basis ..................................................................................................................... 47
Table 34: Model Dynamics Equations for Primary Process ........................................................................ 47
Table 35: Model Dynamics Equations for Secondary Process .................................................................... 49
Table 36: Model Results in Comparison to Proposed Effluent Objectives and Limits ................................ 51
Table 37: Major Equipment Cost Summary for Phase 1 ............................................................................. 53
Table 38: Concrete Cost Summary for Phase 1 ........................................................................................... 54
Table 39: Control and Instrumentation Cost Summary for Phase 1 ........................................................... 56
Table 40: Project Capital Cost Summary for Phase 1 Expansion ................................................................ 58
Table 41: Project Capital Cost Summary for Phase 2 Expansion ................................................................ 59
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Location of the Acton WWTP (Generated by Google Maps) ......................................................... 1
Figure 2: GANTT Chart for Construction Schedule...................................................................................... 15
Figure 3: Phase 1 Project Capital Cost Estimate (Cost in Million (CAD)) ..................................................... 15
Figure 4: Phase 2 Project Capital Cost Estimate (Cost in Million (CAD)) ..................................................... 16
Figure 5: Annual Phase 1 O&M Cost Estimate (Cost in 10K (CAD)) ............................................................ 16
Figure 6: Activated Sludge Process Control ................................................................................................ 43

viii
Figure 7: STOAT
schematic ....................................................................................................................... 50
Figure 8: Model Outputs ............................................................................................................................. 51
Figure 9: Hindered settling Solids Flux Curve used for Secondary Clarifier Sizing ...................................... 71
Figure 10: Plant B Alum Dose Determination ............................................................................................. 72
LIST OF DRAWINGS
Drawing 1: Phase 1 Expansion Plant Layout
Drawing 2: Phase 1 PFD
Drawing 3: Primary Clarifier
Drawing 4: Aeration Basin
Drawing 5: Secondary Clarifier
Drawing 6: Deep Bed Dual Media Filter
Drawing 7: UV Disinfection Channel
Drawing 8: Anaerobic Dual-Stage Digester
Drawing 9a: Phase 1 P&ID Primary Treatment
Drawing 9b: Phase 1 P&ID Secondary Treatment
Drawing 9c: Phase 1 P&ID Tertiary Treatment
Drawing 9d: Phase 1 P&ID Sludge Treatment
Drawing 10: Hydraulic Profile
Drawing 11: Phase 2 Expansion Plant Layout
Drawing 12: Phase 2 PFD
Drawing 13: Phase 2 P&ID Changes

1
1 INTRODUCTION
This report evaluates design alternatives for the proposed expansion of the Acton Wastewater
Treatment Plant (WWTP) (Figure 1). The Regional Municipality of Halton (Halton Region) has identified
the need to increase the existing WWTP rated capacity as it is currently operating near peak capacity. Its
capacity must be expanded to accommodate the projected future growth in two phases: Phase 1 by
2021, and Phase 2 by 2031 (Regional Municipality of Halton, 2009). The expansion is designed to meet
the projected flows and effluent criteria, and is based on the Class Environmental Assessment (EA)
completed in 2010. The objectives of this report are to:
Provide a preliminary design and layout for Phase 1 (5 600 m
3
/day to meet capacity demand to
2021; and
Develop a conceptual layout for Phase 2 (7 000 m
3
/day) expansion to meet the ultimate capacity
requirement in 2031 and beyond.

Figure 1: Location of the Acton WWTP (Generated by Google Maps)
Scope of Work
The scope of this design project includes:
Expansion of the existing inlet works;
Expansion of the biological treatment processes (secondary and tertiary treatment);
Expansion of the effluent UV disinfection facility;
Expansion of the anaerobic handling facility (biosolids are shipped off site);
Expansion of electrical and standby power facilities; and
Upgrades to the instrumentation and SCADA system.


2
Design Basis
The projected design flows and effluent criteria provided by Halton Region were used for as a design
basis. A population analysis was conducted to verify the projected flows (see Appendix B). Table 1
shows the hydraulic loading for the existing plant and Phase 1 and 2 expansions. Table 2 shows the
average and maximum raw pollutant loading obtained from 2009-2010 data from the Acton WWTP.

The Acton WWTP discharges its effluent into Black Creek, which is under the jurisdiction of the Credit
Valley Conservation Authority (CVC). It is classified as a cold-water fishery and therefore is sensitive to
temperature change and contaminant loads. Table 3 shows the existing and projected effluent limits
and objectives, which are based on the average of monthly concentration data, excepting un-ionized
ammonia nitrogen that is based on a single sample.
The plant expansion will provide an increase in the level of treatment provided in addition to the
hydraulic capacity, in keeping with reliable, economically and environmentally sustainable technologies.
Table 1: Existing and Proposed Acton WWTP Hydraulic Loading
Parameter Current
(2008)
(m
3
/day)
Phase 1 Given
(m
3
/day)
Phase 2 Given
(m
3
/day)
Average Daily Flow (dry weather) 4610 5600 7000
Maximum Daily Flow (dry weather) 6160 9690 14307
Instantaneous Peak Flow (wet weather) 15980 14955 21452

Table 2: Design Basis for Annual Average Pollutant Loading
Parameter Annual Average
Concentration (mg/L)
Maximum Monthly
Concentration (mg/L)
BOD
5

165 220
TSS 191 238
Total Phosphorus 4.87 5.94
Ammonia + Ammonium 24.4 30.0
TKN 36.0 44.7

Table 3: Existing and Proposed Acton WWTP Effluents Objectives and Limits
Parameter Current Certificate
of Approval
Proposed Effluent
Objective/Limit
BOD
5
(mg/L) 2/5 2/5
TSS (mg/L) 3/5 3/5
Total Phosphorus (mg/L) 0.2/0.3 0.1/0.2
(Ammonia + Ammonium) Nitrogen (mg/L)
Non-freezing period (May 1 to Nov 31)
Freezing period (Dec 1 to April 30)

1.0/2.0
1.0/4.0

1.0/2.0
1.0/4.0
Unionized Ammonia (monthly average) (mg/L)
Unionized Ammonia (any single sample) (mg/L)
-
-/0.1
-/0.016
-/0.08

3
Parameter Current Certificate
of Approval
Proposed Effluent
Objective/Limit
Escherichia Coli (monthly geometric mean
density) (#of organisms/100mL)
100/150 100/150
2 PROCESS SELECTION
Process selection for the Acton WWTP involved the evaluation of alternative treatment processes. The
existing plant is expanded with a new layout and new technologies to accommodate increased flows and
more stringent limits for Phase 1. In Phase 2 the plant capacity is further increased to handle the
additional flows. The process selection methodology involved researching design alternatives provided
in the Project Statement and evaluating them based on relevant constraints and criteria (Appendix B).
This report focuses on the selected components and their integration for Phase 1 and Phase 2
expansion. The appendices offer supplemental information to the decision component of process
selection.
3 PHASE 1 FACILITY DESIGN
The following components have been sized based on design calculations and industry, government
guidelines and standards, and manufacturer specifications. The layout and process flow diagram (PFD)
can be seen in Drawings 1 and 2 respectively in Appendix A. All other process basin drawings can be
seen in Appendix A and design calculations in Appendix G.
3.1 Wastewater Receiving Station and Headworks
The headworks expansion has been provided by Dillon Consulting (Dillon Consulting, 2008). No changes
have been made to this design. Bar screens and a vortex grit chamber are included in this design.
3.2 Primary Clarification
The total volume of the primary clarifiers is 843 m
3
. The volume will be divided into four rectangular
clarifiers: two existing in Plant B at 165 m
3
and two new at 256 m
3
. This accommodates the incoming
flow from the grit chamber and recirculated water flow from the digester and belt press. Table 4 and
Table 5 summarize the primary clarifier design and expected performance.
Table 4: Primary Clarifier Design
Parameter MDF ADF
Total Volume 843 m
3

Number of Clarifiers 4
Volume of Ex. Clarifiers 165 m
3

Volume of New Clarifiers 256 m
3

Ex. Dimensions (L:W:D)
From Google Earth
13.5 m : 3.5 m : 3.5 m
New Dimensions (L:W:D) 16 m : 4 m : 4 m
New L:W ratio 4
New W:D ratio 1

4
Parameter MDF ADF
New Weir Length 4 m
Pump Capacity 2 m
3
/day
HRT 2 hours 3.5 hours
Overflow Rate 27.5 m
3
/ m
2
/day 50 m
3
/ m
2
/day
TSS Removal 62.5% (3317 kg/day) 40.3% (917 kg/day)
BOD Removal 35.1% (735 kg/day) 57.1% (425 kg/day)

Table 5: Removal Rates of Primary Clarifier
Parameter In (mg/L) MDF % reduction Out (mg/L)
TSS 600 35.1 225
BOD 216 57.1 129

3.3 Secondary Treatment
A conventional plug flow activated-sludge system with nitrification will be the preferred secondary
treatment process for the Phase 1 expansion. This suspended growth biological treatment process
consists of a baffled wall configuration, such that space utilization can be optimized. The activated-
sludge has been designed for maximum daily flow with additional flow feedback, accomodating a total
flow of 9872 m
3
/d. The existing Plant B activated sludge systems will be used in parallel to the proposed
Phase 1 expansion, providing an additional 1275 m
3
/d required for sufficient treatment; therefore, only
2 additional clarifiers will be required. The design summary for each proposed clarifier is outlined in
Table 6 below.
Table 6: Design Summary for Each New Aeration Tank
Parameter Design Flow
Volume (m
3
) 638 m
3
HRT (h) 4.6 h
SRT (d) 12 d
Sludge Production 970 kg/d
Average RAS Flow-rate 182 m
3
/d
Target MLSS 4000 mg/L
Average DO 2 mg/L

3.4 Secondary Clarification
The secondary clarifiers were designed using the Solids Flux Analysis approach. Following the execution
of this method, it was concluded that two additional sedimentation tanks would be required to handle
future design flows, in addition to the existing tanks in Plant B. The required sizing parameters for these
supplementary tanks are outlined below in Table 7. These clarifiers were sized using the maximum daily
flow (9690 m
3
/d) as the design flow. The mixed liquor suspended solids concentration (MLSS)
corresponding to the parameters of this system was found to be 6620 mg/L, provided that the overflow
rate is sufficient. The sizing of the clarifiers ensure that should one tank need to be taken out of service
for maintenance, the rest of the plant can still function. This system will utilize the Envirex Chain &
Scraper Sludge Collector System for sludge removal. Table 7 summarizes the relevant sizing information.

5
Table 7: Secondary Clarifier Design Summary
Total Volume (m
3
) 862
Number of Clarifiers 2
Volume per Clarifier (m
3
) 431
Dimensions (m), L : W : D 22 : 4.9 : 4
HRT (h) 3
Overflow Rate (m
3
/m
2
d) 31
Solids Loading (kg/m
2
d) 12
Pump Capacity (m
3
/day) 72

3.5 Tertiary Treatment for Phosphorus Removal
Chemical addition in the secondary process and adding a deep bed filtration system will assist the facility
in meeting the required phosphorus objectives.
3.5.1 Chemical Addition
Alum will be added near the end of the aeration basin, in a similar manner as the existing design. It is
assumed that the WWTP currently uses liquid alum as opposed to dry alum as this is the less expensive,
more common form of alum (Arsenault, 2011). The dosage for alum was determined based on the
Acton WWTP 2009-2010 concentration data, but pilot tests must be conducted to determine the
required operational dosage. A summary of the alum dosing system is shown in Table 8.
Table 8: Alum Dosing Design Summary Table
Parameter Value
Dosage 85 mg/L
Purity 45%
Amount of Pure Alum Required 824 kg/d
Alum Consumption Rate 1.4 m
3
/d
Storage Tank Volume x 2 9.5 m
3

Solution Tank Volume 1.01 m
3

Feeder Pump Capacity 0.04 m
3
/h (1 operational, 1 redundant)
Dosing Pump Capacity 0.03 m
3
/h (1 operational, 1 redundant)
Mixer Power Required 19 W

3.5.2 Filtration
It is proposed that the existing filtration system be expanded to include a third train with a deep bed
dual media filter. The media selected are sand and anthracite. A summary of the proposed filtration
system is in Table 9.
Table 9: Dual Media Deep Bed Filtration Design Summary Table
Parameter Value
Design Flow Rate 5070 m
3
/d
Surface Loading Rate 7.2 m
3
/m
2
h
Filter Media Dimensions (L:W:D) 8 m x 4 m x 1.2 m

6
Parameter Value
Anthracite
Effective Size
Specific Gravity
Porosity
Depth

1.2 mm
1.7
0.56
46 cm
Sand
Effective Size
Specific Gravity
Porosity
Depth

0.65 mm
2.65
0.43
74 cm
Design Head Loss 1.6 m
Backwash Velocity 38.6 m/h
Backwash Tank Capacity 149.1 m
3
Backwash Tank Height 2.5 m
Backwash Pump Capacity 1.2 m
3
/min (2 pumps in parallel, 1 redundant)

The flow to this filter is based on the assumption that the existing filters have been designed to handle
75% of the current plant flow each, and thus the filter is only designed to handle the additional flow.
The filter operation is declining rate gravity filtration. The filtered effluent is pumped to the backwash
tank via a variable speed pump or into a clear well once the backwash tank is full. The selected
underdrain system is the Leopold Type S Technology Underdrain, which provides a uniform
distribution of air and water for backwashing.
The backwash cycle must last for a minimum of 10 minutes and achieve a minimum of 20% fluidized bed
expansion (MOE, 2008). During backwashing, filter is removed from operation and the water level in the
filter is lowered to approximately 10 cm. Air scour and surface wash via rotating nozzles then begins for
approximately 5 minutes. The last minute is overlapped by backwashing, which continues for an
additional 7 minutes. The water and freed particles overflow into the wash trough and are sent to the
digester. Pilot tests must be conducted to determine the optimal time between backwash cycles.
The filter must be housed to maintain the air temperature. The building must house the filter electrical
equipment, heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system, and a PLC.
3.6 Disinfection System
The ultraviolet (UV) disinfection system will be expanded to treat the new peak flow. The Trojan
UV3000PLUS has been selected for this design, which has the capability and air convection cooling of
the ballasts (Trojan Technologies, 2009). Trojan Technologies is also a world leader in providing reliable
UV systems and is locally-based. The Trojan UV3000PLUS brochure is provided in Appendix F. Table 10
shows the preliminary design of the UV disinfection system.
Table 10: UV Design Summarization
Parameter Value
UV Dose 40 mJ/cm
2
at peak daily flow at end of lamp life
Channel Dimensions (L:W:D) 14.5 m x 0.4 m x 0.8 m
Number of Channels 2
Number of Banks/Channel 3 (2 operational, 1 redundant)

7
Parameter Value
Number of Modules/Bank 4
Number of Lamps/Module 8
Total Number of Lamps/Channel 96
Power Requirement/Channel 40 kW (250W/lamp with 40% efficiency)
Hydraulic Design 0.65 m across channel
Level Controller Automatic level controller
Guaranteed Lamp Life (hours of actual
operation)
12 000 hours
Control of UV Dose Delivery Automatic and continuous dose posing
Cleaning Mechanism Automated mechanical/chemical cleaning

The UV systems influent water comes from the clear well via gravity flow. As this water passes through
tertiary treatment, it is expected that the water will be of low enough turbidity that lamp fouling will be
minimal. To handle the projected Phase 1 flow, three channels are required. From the site visit, it was
determined that Acton already has one operational UV channel. The modular design of the expanded
UV channels is expected to work concurrently in parallel with the existing channel. The third bank in
each channel is provided for redundancy if any of the banks need to be taken out of operation. As three
channels exist, it was determined that a redundant channel was not required. Each channel has the
capacity to treat 4000 L/min, and is equipped with a baffle for even flow distribution.
The UV channel will be housed alongside the existing UV channel. The required equipment and
instrumentation include the UV electrical equipment, process logic controllers (PLC), and HVAC
equipment. It has been assumed that the existing UV area has enough space for additional storage of
replacement parts (i.e. lamps, ballasts, cleaning solution) and other UV equipment (i.e. hoist).
3.7 Sludge Digestion
The dual-stage anaerobic digestion process will remain the same for stabilizing sludge. A new series of
digesters will be built to operate in parallel with the existing digester. The first digester holds the
hydrolysis and acidogenesis phases and then the sludge flows to the second digester that holds the
methanogenic phase. The first digester has a floating roof and the second digester has a fixed roof to
allow for methane collection. Table 11 shows the design dimensions of the dual-stage digesters.
Sludge dewatering will take place after the digested solids come from the second digesters. No sludge
thickening process has been added to the facility before the digesters.
Table 11: Anaerobic Digestion Design Summary (at MDF)
Factor Value
Digester 1 Dimensions (Diameter x Depth) 7 m x 5 m
Digester 2 Dimensions (Diameter x Depth) 11.5 m x 7 m
SRT for Digester 1 2 days
SRT for Digester 2 8 days
Influent Sludge Flow 176 m
3
/day
Sludge Flow to Belt Press 100 m
3
/day
Supernatant Flow to Primary Treatment 82 m
3
/day
Supernatant Solids Concentration 2%

8

3.8 Gravity Belt Press
Currently, sludge is occasionally dewatered in drying bed, but is typically shipped off-site to a biosolids
handling facility prior to land application without drying. To be able to accommodate future flow and
population growth in Phase 1 and Phase 2, a sludge dewatering system is recommended. A belt press is
the preferred method to include because of its low cost, ease of operation and effectiveness in
separating water from the sludge, relative to using the existing sludge drying beds (see Appendix F).
Table 12 shows the design summary for the DYNA 1000A Belt Press.
Table 12: Belt Press Summary
Factor Value
Base Footprint (Length : Width) 5.34 m : 1.85 m
Belt Width 1 m
Cake Solids (estimated) 25%
Sludge Cake Flow Rate at Max Flow 4946 L/d
Filtrate Return at Max Flow 94280 L/d
Polymer Addition to Flow 3 g/kg

3.9 Sludge Disposal
In keeping with Haltons Regional Biosolids Recycling Program, the digested and thickened solids will be
sent off-site for storage and agricultural land application.
3.10 Noise and Odour Control
There are no documented issues with noise and odour control (Regional Munipality of Halton, 2008).
Potential sources of noise and odour have been acknowledged and preventative measures have been
implemented where necessary. The retrofit area is located within the WWTPs current property
boundaries, thus the existing buffer zone is maintained. There are no Ontario guidelines dictating the
required buffer zone.
The largest concern for odour is typically found in the grit chamber. Dillon Consulting has recommended
heavy duty washers/compacters to wash out organic matter and press out water, installing a grit
washer/classifier and installing a screening washer/compactor with high cleaning efficiency. It was also
recommended to designate a room in the inlet works to accommodate odour control equipment (Dillon
Consulting, 2008).
The generator is typically the noisiest part of the facility. The generator is only used for back up, so this
should only cause concern in emergencies. Should noise be of concern we recommend housing the
generator; however this design does not include a housing unit. The belt press will also be housed to
avoid noise and odour concerns. Because the buffer zone is fairly similar and relatively no new
technologies are being implemented, no other noise concerns are generated.
3.11 Hydraulic Profile
The hydraulic profile for the Phase 1 expansion is shown in Appendix A. It was a key consideration in the
proposed plant layout. The profile extends from the beginning of primary clarifier and ends at the
existing plant outfall.

9
3.12 Electrical Upgrades
To determine additional power requirements in the Acton WWTP upgrade, the additional projected
design treatment volume and standard treatment power requirements, were used to determine the
upgrades required. Based on the expansion requirements it was estimated that plant power
requirements would increase by only 100kW, and that additional infrastructure would be required to
support these increased power requirements.
For standby purposes, it is recommended that a generator (i.e. Caterpillar 150kW 60Hz three-phase
Diesel generator or equivalent) be purchased for use in combination with current electric backup
facilities. Additionally, power distribution infrastructure including transformers, motor control centers,
wiring, lighting, and lighting protection facilities will also be required in the plant upgrade.
3.13 Modeling
The Phase 1 primary and secondary design was modeled using STOAT. Initial simulation results suggest
that the design will enable the WWTP to meet the new effluent objectives, with the exception of MLSS
as further detailed in Appendix D. The model therefore shows the necessity of tertiary treatment.
4 PHASE 2 FACILITY DESIGN
This section describes the conceptual design for the Phase 2 expansion. Any component of the system
not described in this section should be assumed to stay the same. These retrofits anticipate the
projected Phase 2 flow and more stringent effluent limits and objectives in the future. Drawings for the
Phase 2 design can be seen in Appendix A. A summary of the Phase 2 additions with respect to Phase 1
design is provided in Table 13.
An additional primary clarifier tank of the same size as the Phase 1 new tanks, 17m by 4 m by 3.5 m, will
be built to handle the excess flow.
The aeration tanks in Plant B will be retrofitted as a plug flow reactor (PFR), in the same fashion as the
new tank built for the Phase 1 expansion. Further, biological nutrient removal (BNR) technology will be
incorporated through the addition of an anoxic and anaerobic zone, in addition an aerobic zone. The
volume of aeration tanks will be increased from 634 m
3
to 916 m
3
to hold the additional flow. This
construction will require Plant B to be removed from operation during the construction, so all flow will
be directed from the primary clarifiers to the Phase 1 aeration tanks. For this reason, no new retrofits
will be done to these tanks for Phase 2 construction. In anticipation of more stringent effluent limits, all
aeration tanks should be retrofitted to also have BNR technology in retrofits beyond Phase 2.
The filtration process in Phase 2 will depend on market conditions. If membrane technologies become
more affordable, it is recommended that this technology be incorporated in the existing system. If
membrane technologies remain expensive and operation information remains largely untested at a full
plant scale, only an additional deep bed filter will be built to accommodate the increased Phase 2 flows.
A UV channel of the same size will be added for the Phase 2 expansion.
The current digester system for Phase 1 will stay in commission. To further Actons monetary return and
sustainability, it is recommended that phosphorus recovery through struvite formation be investigated.

10
This will become increasingly important as natural phosphorus deposits deplete and phosphorus
demand increases.
The electrical system will be upgraded to accommodate new retrofits. Due to the unpredictability of
technological trends and advancements, no recommendations for the automation systems upgrade can
be provided at this time.
Table 13: Phase 2 Conceptual Design with respect to Phase 1 Design
Component Phase 2 Design
Wastewater Receiving Station and
Headworks
Not considered at this point due to Phase 1 design
provided by Dillon Consulting
Primary Clarification 1 additional, 17m : 4 m : 3.5 m
Secondary Treatment Plant B retrofitted as PFR, no new construction
Secondary Clarification No changes
Tertiary Treatment for Phosphorus
Removal
1 additional deep bed filter, any additional new
technology will depend on market conditions.
Disinfection System 1 additional UV channel, 14.5 m x 0.4 m x 0.8 m
Sludge Digestion Recommend investigation of phosphorus recovery via
struvite formation
Electrical Upgrades No changes
5 PROCESS CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION
5.1 Online Sampling and Control
To properly monitor and control the additions to the Acton WWTP, instrumentation and control
strategies will also have to be considered in the final design. These automations should be considered
seriously as large portions of a plants operating costs can be attributed to poor efficiency in plant
control strategies, or complete lack of control strategies. In evaluating instrumentation and control
options, current plant infrastructure and Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition (SCADA) hierarchy
will have to be considered for the purposes of final design. Standard SCADA components are:
Programmable Logic Controllers (PLC): robust and stable controller, based on relay-logic, and
capable of monitoring thousands of inputs and outputs.
Remote Terminal Units (RTU): an industrial grade microcontroller, often used in SCADA
networking and control.
Intelligent Electronic Devices (IED): a pre-packaged control and monitoring device. Generally
more expensive but works out of the box.
Personal Computer (PC): commonly used as a centralized process monitoring station for all plant
processes.
In the design of the instrumentation and control schemes for the plant, a distributed control system was
chosen for the processes outlined in Appendix C. Distributed control is generally more stable and
reliable than centralized control in an industrial context (Bailey and Wright, 2003). In contrast to a
centralized control scheme where a central control unit monitors and controls all processes, a
distributed control scheme generally assigns a single process to an individual onsite PLC, RTU or IED. The
onsite controller maintains crucial process control, and reports back to the SCADA system. The

11
advantage to this hierarchy is a reduced chance of mass failure since control is distributed across
multiple devices, and each device is in close proximity with the process of interest.
The Acton WWTP expansion will require additional PLCs, MTUs, and instrumentation to extend the
current SCADA network, and maintain efficiency in the expanded areas. The current Acton SCADA
system uses the WonderWare
software monitoring package; in the expansion of the Acton plant, care

should be taken to properly interface with the existing SCADA infrastructure and network. Detailed
control strategies are outlined in Appendix C, and an outline of the process control and instrumentation
can be seen below in Table 14.
Table 14: SCADA Monitoring Summary
Section Measured Inputs Control Outputs Strategy Notes
Primary Clarifiers Flow-in
Water level
Sludge blanket
level
Sludge density
Flow-out
Sludge pumping
Alarms
Sludge blanket level
driven sludge pumping.
Activated Sludge
Aeration
Flow-in
Dissolved-Oxygen
input
Suspended Solids
Flow-out
Diffusers oxygen
output
Feed forward with PI
feedback control
strategy
Secondary Clarifiers Flow-in
Sludge blanket
level
Suspended solids
Flow-out
RAS pumping
WAS pumping
RAS determined as
influent ratio.
Digesters Flow-in
Level
pH
Temperature
Mixing
Temperature
Sludge Loading
Sludge
withdrawal
Sludge mixing based on
timed control, and
Temperature controlled
with PI feedback
control.
Tertiary Treatment UV dosage
Flow-in
Level
UV control
Flow splitting
Input flows are divided
amongst UV channels
based on flow rate.

5.2 Manual Grab Sampling
The SCADA system will perform water quality testing on a continuous basis, but is limited and should not
be the only facility monitoring method. Manual grab samples will also be needed on an ongoing basis.
Table 15 summarizes the minimum necessary samples (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,
2008). Standard Ministry of the Environment (MOE) laboratory practises and procedures need to be
followed for reliable results.

12
Table 15: Grab Sample Testing
Location Parameter Tested Frequency
Effluent Dissolved Oxygen
pH
Daily
Effluent Fecal Coliform Twice weekly
Aeration Tank Outlet Settleability
TSS
Volatile Solids
Daily
Secondary Clarifier Blanket Depth
TSS
Daily
Return Sludge TSS Daily
Filter Backwash BOD
TSS
As needed
Digester Outlet Settleability
Percent Solids
TSS
Volatile Suspended Solids

6 CONSTRUCTION STAGING
6.1 Construction Schedule
The item list and construction time estimate for the Phase 1 expansion construction is summarized in
Error! Reference source not found.. This summary of construction time expects construction for many
components to be done simultaneously in the two-year construction period. It includes the anticipation
of typical construction stages including:
Purchasing equipment;
Work schedule (including holidays and typical work hours);
Contract delineation; and
Market conditions.
Table 16: Construction Summary
Component to Be Built Quantity Estimated Time for Total
Construction
Primary Clarifiers 2 16 months
Aeration Tanks 2 24 months
Secondary Clarifiers 4 18 months
Deep Bed Filter 1 16 months
UV Channel 1 6 months
Primary and Secondary Digester 1 12 months
Belt Press 1 6 months
Electrical Power Supply Upgrade, including
Standby Generator
- 4 months
Earth Work
(e.g. excavation and landscaping)
- 1 month

13
Component to Be Built Quantity Estimated Time for Total
Construction
Anticipated Total Construction - 24 months

The construction schedule is shown in Figure 2.
Environmental consideration during construction should be followed during all aspects of the
construction period. Section 6.1 further outlines environmental considerations and proper protocol.
The work to be considered for each component includes:
Government and other documents filing;
Geotechnical work;
Concrete and masonry work;
Equipment/piping purchase and installation;
Electrical instrumentation and monitoring installation; and
Testing.
6.2 Environmental Considerations
In order to limit the environmental impact on the site during the construction of the plants expansion,
best management practices (BMPs) should be taken into consideration. In order to ensure that the sites
environmental integrity is maintained, actions can be taken to limit the impact. The first action that can
be taken is to construct the expansion in phases such that duration of soil exposure is limited to
minimize erosion. Steep slopes and cuts should be avoided, but where necessary, fence or geotextiles
can be used to stabilize the soil.
Waterways should be protected during construction through installation of silt fencing or earthen dykes.
This is especially important for the Acton WWTP due to its proximity to the environmentally sensitive
Black Creek. Perimeter controls should be implemented to filter sediment. These controls can include
silt fencing, where a fiber roll can be installed on the site side of the fence for additional filtration.
Proper waste disposal is also a major concern during construction, therefore disposal basins and areas
should be properly labeled and located away from water bodies. It is important to note that even with
implementation of BMPs, it is among the most important to properly certify and train contractors in
proper use of these methods, such that efficiency is maintained. Finally, it is important to inspect and
maintain the BMPs such that standards are met. Inspections should occur on a regular basis, and most
importantly before and after rain events.
A
c
t
o
n

W
a
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r

T
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t

P
l
a
n
t

D
e
s
i
g
n

R
e
p
o
r
t

W
E
F

S
t
u
d
e
n
t

D
e
s
i
g
n

C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
o
n

2
0
1
1

1
4

F
i
g
u
r
e

2
:

G
A
N
T
T

C
h
a
r
t

f
o
r

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e

15
7 ECONOMIC EVALUATION
7.1 Capital Cost
The preliminary cost estimates were prepared through research of generic pricing for various WWTP
components, information provided by our consultant advisor, and typical cost multipliers provided in
standard texts and in reports from other WWTPs. A detailed cost breakdown is provided in Appendix E.
The total project capital cost for the Phase 1 expansion is estimated to be $24M, including
contingencies, retrofit and demolition, overhead, and engineering services (see Figure 3). The estimation
is expected to fall within +50/-20 % accuracy for this level of design. The total preliminary capital cost
estimate for the Phase 2 expansion was scaled from the cost estimate for Phase 1, and is approximately
$12M, which has a greater level of uncertainty than for Phase 1, as reflected in the contingencies (see
Figure 4).

Figure 3: Phase 1 Project Capital Cost Estimate (Cost in Million (CAD))


16

Figure 4: Phase 2 Project Capital Cost Estimate (Cost in Million (CAD))
7.2 Operations and Maintenance
As calculated in Appendix E, the estimated total annual operations and maintenance (O&M) costs
including manpower, electrical power, chemicals, waste transport and disposal and maintenance sum to
$1.2M per year. This distribution can be seen in Figure 5. In 2021, the predicted annual O&M costs are
expected to be $1.8M.

Figure 5: Annual Phase 1 O&M Cost Estimate (Cost in 10K (CAD))


17
8 INNOVATION
Municipal facilities need to ensure their budget is most effectively used. One way to ensure this is to
use conventional technologies, providing limited risk. This design makes use of conventional
technologies by carrying on the technologies used in the existing treatment plant and keeping within
MOE guidelines from the Design Guidelines for Sewage Works (MOE 2008). However, Halton Region has
begun to incorporate more innovative technologies that have reliable tests showing their efficiency and
capacity to aid in achieving the effluent objectives. This will ultimately save utility expenses and allow
for more efficient upgrades to future expansion. These technologies include: ultraviolet radiation, dual-
stage anaerobic digesters, and preparing the facility for PFR secondary treatment upgrades in the future.
9 HEALTH AND SAFETY
9.1 Engineering Design
All raised platforms (including tops of tanks) and areas around open water will have railings to minimize
the risk of falling. Emergency kill switches will be implemented for all mechanical devices.

Any components that must be monitored, maintained, and/or operated (e.g. valves) are designed to be
easily visible and accessible. Pipes should be colour-coded and labeled to allow for easier identification.
Pipes that are hot must be clearly labeled with a warning sign and will be located out of the way of
frequent traffic.

Methane gas produced in the digesters is an explosion hazard, thus the digesters will have emergency
alarms and will vent to an on-site flare to burn off excess methane gas.

The WWTP has been designed with various alarms and redundancies to accommodate equipment or
electrical failure, components taken off-line, or high flows. In conjunction with an effective monitoring
and maintenance program, this will provide a means for the plant to accommodate the flows and
remain in compliance with the Certificate of Approval.

9.2 Facility Security
Access to the site is restricted to facility personnel and those with permission to be on the site. To
prevent public access, the fence around the property must be maintained and locked when personnel
have left the facility.

9.3 Training
Operators must hold a current license under O. Reg. 129/04 Licensing Guide for Operators of
Wastewater Facilities. Any person on-site must wear the appropriate personal protective equipment
(PPE).

9.4 Laboratory
Appropriate laboratory safety procedures must be in place to protect the worker. To ensure accurate
samples are taken, up-to-date sampling and analysis protocols should be available and all operators
trained accordingly. Quality assurance and quality control measures must be implemented in the
protocols to ensure accurate and representative sample collection and analysis.
9.5 Construction

18
Any construction on-site must be supervised by qualified personnel. Any contractors or sub-contractors
on-site must abide by the more stringent of their or the facilitys health and safety plan.
10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The University of Guelph Team has designed a retrofit of Actons WWTP to increase its capacity to
handle their projected flows while remaining in compliance with the stricter limits imposed. This design
includes preliminary sizing for Phase 1 of the expansion including major process equipment,
instrumentation and controls, standby generator, and utility upgrades. A conceptual layout was also
developed for the Phase 2 expansion.
The Phase 1 expansion was designed with a rated capacity of 5600 m
3
/day. The recommended retrofit
includes the addition of primary and secondary clarifiers, two conventional activated sludge tanks with
nitrification in a PFR configuration, a dual media deep bed filter, an expansion of the UV disinfection
system in keeping with the current design, a dual-stage anaerobic digester, additional chemical storage,
and a belt press. The inlet works will also be expanded in Phase 1, but the inlet works design report was
completed by Dillon Consulting and is thus considered separate from the Phase 1 design. The Phase 1
expansion is estimated to have a capital cost of $24M and annual O&M cost of $1.2M. Construction is
expected to last 24 months.
In the conceptual Phase 2 expansion, it is recommended that an additional train be added for
clarification, filtration, and disinfection. It is also proposed that the Plant B aeration basins be modified
to a PFR configuration with BNR in all aeration basins. As an alternative to adding an additional filter is
to consider membrane technology for tertiary treatment, which is dependent on future information
regarding its reliability and cost. Phosphorus extraction from the solids is also recommended due to
market projections of phosphorus demand, but is dependent on future costs of this technology. The
capital cost estimate for the Phase 2 expansion for the major equipment and instrumentation excluding
membrane and phosphorus extraction technology is $12M.

19
11 REFERENCES
American Water Works Association (AWWA) and American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). Water
Treatment Plant Design (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Arthur, M. R., et al. (1983). Procedures and Practices in Activated Sludge Process Control. 10 Tower
Office Park, Woburn : Butterworth Publishers
Arsenault, D. (2011). Consultant Advisor, CH2M Hill. Interview.
ASA Analytics. (2011). Total Phosphorus in Water or Wastewater. Retrieved March 12, 2011, from
<http://www.asaanalytics.com/total-phosphorous.php>
Bailey, D., Wright, E. (2003). Practical SCADA for Industry. Jordan Hill, Oxford: Elsevier
Baruth, E. E., et al. (2005). Water Treatment Plant Design (Forth Edition), McGraw-Hill
Beca. (2007). Epsom Spring Gully Recycled Water Project UV Disinfection Validation. Retrieved
February 20, 2011, from <http://www.coliban.com.au/operations/documents/AppendixH-
UVValidationReport.pdf>
Bratz, C.L. (2010). Put Your Lights On: Design and Construction of a Large UV Facility at Central Valley
WRF, Utah. PNCWA 2010. Retrieved March 20, 2011, from
<https://pncwa.memberclicks.net/assets/2010ConfTechPresentations/Session12/2010%20pncwa-
%20session%2012-3%20-%20disinfection%20-%20cynthia%20bratz.pdf>
Brinkoff, Thomas. (2011). City Population. Retrieved March 10, 2011, from
http://www.citypopulation.de/
Brown and Caraco, 1997, Muddy Water In, Muddy Water Out? From: Watershed Protection Techniques.
2(3): 393-403.
Chang, S. (2011). ENGG*4260 Water and Wastewater Treatment Design Course Notes. Guelph, ON:
School of Engineering, University of Guelph.
Department of Energy. (2001). 21 Steps to Improve Cyber Security of SCADA Networks.
Dillon Consulting. (2008). Region of Halton Acton WWTP: Conceptual Design of Inlet Works. Oakville:
Dillon Consulting.
Droste, R.L. (1997). Theory and Practice of Water and Wastewater Treatment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.
Engineering News-Record. (2011). Construction Economics. Retrieved on March 20, 2011 from
http://enr.construction.com/economics/
Hazen and Sawyer Environmental Engineers and Scientists. (2003). Final Technical Assistance Report:
Panama Bay Sanitation Project - "Juan Diaz WWTP Construction and Operations and Maintenance
Costs". Panama Ministry of Health.

20
Henze, M., van Loosdrecht, M., Ekama, G., Brdjanovic, D. (2008). Biological Wastewater Treatment:
Principles, Modelling and Design. London: IWA Publishing.
Hill, R., et al. (1997). Automated Process Control Strategies. Alexandria : Water Environment Federation.
Hill, R., et al. (2007). Automation of Wastewater Treatment Facilities (Third Edition), MOP 21. Alexandria:
Water Environment Federation.
Inamdar, S. (2010). Minor Losses in Pipes. Retrieved March 17, 2011, from
<http://udel.edu/~inamdar/EGTE215/Minor_loss.pdf>
ITT Water & Wastewater U.S.A., Inc. (2008). Leopold Type S Technology Underdrain. Retrieved
February 25, 2011, from
<www.itttreatment.com/ProductPDF/leopold_type_s_underdrain_brochure.pdf>
Katebi, R., Johnson, M. A., Jacqueline, W. (1999). Control and Instrumentation for Wastewater
Treatment Plants. Springer.
Lin, S. D. (2007). Water and Wastewater Calculations Manual. McGraw-Hill.
Lynk, S.V., Rogers, R.R., Booth, S.K., Morabbi, M. & Cook, W.R. (2006). Filter Retrofit At Austin Increases
Capacity by 50% With Improved Ripening. Retrieved March 20, 2011, from
<http://www.tawwa.org/TW06TECH/TWfiles/Lynk,%20Steven.pdf>
Marsulex. (n.a.). Liquid Alum Material Safety Data Sheet. Retrieved February 20, 2011, from
<http://www.marsulex.com/customers/pdfs/msds_AlumLiquid.pdf>
Metcalf & Eddy. (2003). Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ministry of the Environment (MOE). (2008). Design Guidelines for Sewage Works. Ontario: Queens
Printer for Ontario.
Otieno & Ochieng, G.M. (n.a.). Design of Sewerage Systems (CVS 875E). Retrieved March 14, 2011, from
<www.scribd.com/doc/19382182/CVS875E-12-a>
Regional Municipality of Halton. (2009). Wastewater Treatment Systems 2008 Performance Report.
Halton: Regional Municipality of Halton.
Stantec Corporation, Ltd. & Hydromantis, Inc. (2003). Ultraviolet Disinfection Technology for Municipal
Wastewater Treatment Plant Applications in Canada, Prepared for The Corporation of the City of
Windsor in partnership with the Government of Canada, Ontario Ministry of the Environment and the
Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Queen's Printer for Canada.

STOAT. (2002). WRc STOAT Process Model Descriptions. Swindon, Wiltshire: WRc.
Sunfine. (n.a.). Quartz Sleeve. Retrieved February 20, 2011, from <www.light-uv.com/Quartz-Sleeve-
42.html>
Sunfine. (n.a.). Replacement Lamp of Trojan UV 3000 Plus. Retrieved February 20, 2011, from
<http://www.light-uv.com/Replacement-Lamp-of-Trojan-UV-3000-Plus-44.html>

21
Tasfi, L., Kolli, K. & McKillop, M. (2010). Acton Wastewater Treatment Plant Class Environmental
Assessment - Environmental Study Report. Dillon Consulting.

The Engineering Toolbox. (2011). Water Dynamic and Kinematic Viscosity. Retrieved January 19,
2011, from <http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-dynamic-kinematic-viscosity-d_596.html>
Trojan Technologies. (2009). TrojanUV. Retrieved February 25, 2011, from <http://www.trojanuv.com/>
US Environmental Protection Agency. (2000). Biosolids Technology Fact Sheet: Belt Filter Press.
Water Environment Federation (WEF). (1996). Wastewater Disinfection. Manual of Practice FD-10.

Water Environment Federation (WEF). (2003). Wastewater Treatment Plant Design. London, UK: IWA
Publishing.

Water Environment Federation (WEF) & American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). (1998). Design of
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants, Vol. 1, 2 and 3. (4
th
ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCE & WEF.
Water Environment Association of Ontario. (2010). WEAO Student Design Competition 2011: Project
Statement.
White, F.M. (2008). Fluid Mechanics (6
th
ed.). McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. (2008). Example Small Wastewater Treatment Plant
Laboratory Quality Manual (4
th
ed). Wisconsin: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
Zhou, H. (2011). Faculty Advisor, University of Guelph. Interview.


APPENDIX A DRAWINGS


APPENDIX B INTERIM REPORT


B.1 REVIEW OF EXISTING FACILITY
The existing WWTP is located at 202 Churchill Road South in the community of Acton in the
Town of Halton Hills within the Halton Region. It is a tertiary treatment facility that discharges
into Black Creek, classified as a cold-water fishery that is sensitive to temperature and
contaminant loads. Currently operating near its peak capacity, it is rated for an average
capacity of 4 545 m
3
/day and peak capacity of 13 410 m
3
/day.
It already consists of screening, grit removal, flow splitting to primary clarification, nitrifying
activated sludge, final clarification, traveling filters, an aluminum sulphate dosing system for
phosphorus removal, dual stage anaerobic digestion and UV treatment of the final effluent. Its
sensitivity to contaminant loads rules out the application of chlorine disinfection and requires
strict effluent objectives and limits, as per the Environment Certificate of Approval.
B.2 POPULATION ESTIMATE
The current population was predicted from City Populations 2008 population values (Brinkoff,
Thomas, 2011). They predict a linear growth in Acton for the next 20 years. More detailed
statistics for population values are for the Region of Halton which has seven WWTPs to cover its
population of about 440 000 people but it is difficult to predict the growth of Acton from these
values (WEAO, 2010). These values should only be read as estimates. The predicted population
growth is in Table 17.
Table 17: Population Growth Estimate
Phase Current 1 2
Year 2008 2021 2031
Population 8769 10641 12081

To calculate the future flow rates, two parameters need to be accounted for, in addition to the
general per capita flow rate. The first is that new residents in the area will typically live in new
homes, as the existing population is growing, and these new homes are known to have more
water saving devices, such as low-flush toilets. Therefore the new per capita flowrate is the
current per capita flowrate with about 10 percent subtracted (Metcalf & Eddy, 2003). The
second parameter to review is the infiltration/inflow. Dillon Consulting cited an
infiltration/inflow test run by Halton. It was found that the rate of infiltration/inflow added to
sewer flow is 204 L/c/d (Dillon Consulting, 2008). The predicted flows in comparison to the
given flows are in Table 18.


Table 18: Calculated Flow Rate Estimates
Parameter Current
(m
3
/day)
Phase 1
Given
(m
3
/day)
Phase 1
Calculated
(m
3
/day)
Phase 2
Given
(m
3
/day)
Phase 2
Calculated
(m
3
/day)
Average Daily
Flow (dry
weather)
4610 5600 7628 7000 8574
Maximum Daily
Flow (dry
weather)
6160 9690 10193 14307 11456
Instantaneous
Peak Flow (wet
weather)
15980 14955 26442 21452 29721

Discrepancies in the predicted flows can be due to many factors. The peak factors and max
factors were found through the current flowrates. As populations grow, it is less likely that
there is a fluctuation in peak flows, so the flows stay more consistent (Metcalf & Eddy, 2003).
This could be why the provided Phase 1 flow is less than the current peak flow.
B.3 ASSUMPTIONS
Assumptions made for this design have been identified throughout the report. This section
states general assumptions that should be noted in addition to the specific assumptions stated
throughout this report.

Problems with the facility that have not been documented or stated in the facility site visit
are not to be dealt with. Components that have not been mentioned to have issues are
assumed to be working well. These components can be expected to not be upgraded, if it
does not seem necessary.
When processes for the current system are not fully described, the most conventional
method of the process will be chosen.
The control room will not need an upgrade in size, as this project does not designate
administrative staff required.
The current supplied from surrounding infrastructure will be sufficient to power any
upgrades to the facility.
Decommissioned components from the original plant can be considered available area for
upgrades in expansion.
The provided information from Acton regarding inlet works will be trusted to sufficiently
meet the desired upgrades.


B.4 PROCESS SELECTION
This section outlines the constraints and criteria used to evaluate each component with its
alternatives. The decision matricies in Section B.6 from which the process alternative was
selected expanded on the criteria outlined in the following sections.
B.4.1 Constraints
The following constraints have been identified:

Meet effluent limits. The effluent discharged into Black Creek must meet the effluent limits set
in the Project Statement to ensure the safety of the Black Creek environment.
Accommodate design flows. Another major component of the treatment facility is to
accommodate the expansion of Acton. The expanded treatment facility will need to
accommodate 2021 Phase 1 flows to be suitable in design. The facility design must also be able
to be scaled to meet in Phase 2 flows in 2031.
Meet safety regulations (OSHA). Any design needs to be safe for the public, workers and other
personal in the area.
Use available land. The plant expansion will be constructed within the limits of the proposed
work area provided by Halton Region. The site topography must also be taken account when
developing the plant layout in order to incorporate as much as possible of the site topography in
the hydraulic design.
Compatibility with existing facility. Acton cannot afford to decommission its entire facility and
thus the retrofits must be compatible with the remaining plant components.
Operate in emergency situations. To avoid contaminant discharge in Black Creek and excessive
flow rates, the overall plant must be able to work in all situations. This constraint includes the
requirement of a back-up generator, overflow accommodation and system back-ups.

B.4.2 Criteria
Based on the University of Guelph Team design philosophy, the following criteria have been
applied to the design:

Power efficiency. The facility should run on a minimal amount of power to minimize power
consumption. Reducing energy consumption is a high priority to reduce costs and environmental
footprint.
Cost-effectiveness. The plant upgrades should be as low cost as possible without compromising
the constraints and other criteria. This criteria has been separated into capital costs and
operational costs to be most effective in reducing financial strain from the project.
Environmental impact. The facility is in a populated area and near sensitive ecosystems. It is
important to not disturb the surrounding environment, thus noise, odour, and air emission
controls will be implemented wherever it is deemed economically feasible.
Footprint minimization. To reduce land use, costs and environmental impact, a smaller sized
facility that can still accommodate the required capacity is encouraged.
Integration with existing facility. The proposed upgrades should be compatible with the existing
facility and use existing basins and piping wherever possible in order to reduce materials and
redundancy in the facility.

B.4.3 Secondary Treatment PFR Activated Sludge Process
Selection of the process to be used in the expansion of the secondary treatment process
included the assessment of various currently used processes including conventional activated-
sludge, membrane bioreactor, sequencing batch reactor, rotating biological contactor, and
moving bed biofilm reactors. Using the constraints and criteria provided by The Regional
Municipality of Halton, along with constraints and criteria developed by the group as seemed
necessary, conventional activated-sludge was selected as the optimal solution.
Acton currently uses the activated-sludge process in continuous stir tank reactors (CSTR). The
activated-sludge process are composed of three basic components. These consist of reactors in
which the microorganisms that are responsible for treatment are kept in suspension and
aerated, a solids separation process (typically a sedimentation tank), and a system which
recycles the solids that are removed in the separation process back to the first reactor. The key
feature of the activated-sludge process is that it utilizes flocculation to aid in the creation of
settleable solids, such that the gravity can improve solids removal. In the context of wastewater
treatment, the activated-sludge process is used in addition to physical and chemical processes,
as well as final treatment such as disinfection and filtration (Metcalf & Eddy, 2003).
Activated-sludge processes have evolved over the past decade; though in the past 20 years it
processes have been modified such that efficient removal of nitrogen and phosphorus can be
obtained (WEF & ASCE, 1998). Due to the increasing complexity of activated sludge processes,
computer modeling and simulation has become increasingly important tool when incorporating
the various components. Further understanding of the aeration process implemented in this
design has been obtained through modeling in STOAT

.
The activated-sludge process, like any process to be implemented, has both benefits and
drawbacks. Benefits recognized during process selection are outlined below:
The PFR design of the aeration basin can be easily retrofitted for future developments to
include biological nutrient removal, which encompasses anoxic and anaerobic zone to
provide denitrification and phosphorus removal.
Biological nitrification can be achieved without the addition of chemicals.
Capable of removing up to 95% suspended solids (WEF & ASCE, 1998).
Most widely used process in industry therefore has a wealth of supporting literature and
experience.
Currently already used by plant, therefore new staff and training would be at a
minimum.
Biological foaming and sludge bulking is less likely to occur due to the fact that the area
is completely aerated.
During process selection, some drawbacks were also identified, and therefore can be found to
be the following:
Problems with obtaining well settled sludge exist.
Does not perform denitrification or remove phosphorus on its own, therefore additional
system specialization is required should one wish to avoid chemical usage.
Higher metals content in effluent sludge due to chemical requirements, thereby
rendering the sludge less desirable for agricultural application.

High aeration requirements, which results in high operational costs.
B.4.4 Tertiary Treatment - Phosphorus Removal
Phosphorus removal is an important process in Acton's WWTP to limit eutrophication in the
sensitive receiving water body. In conventional secondary treatment processes, phosphorus is
taken up from solution for biomass synthesis. This occurs in the process of phosphorus release
in an anaerobic zone, followed by the rapid uptake of soluble orthophosphate in the aerobic
zone where the microorganisms continue to grow and store phosphorus. There are many
limitations associated with phosphorus removal in a biological system, and thus a physical
process such as filtration, or a chemical process such as precipitation, must be incorporated to
decrease phosphorus concentrations in the effluent (WEF, 2003). The Class EA identified the
following options for phosphorus removal:
Expanding the existing shallow bed filters;
Dual filtration with existing shallow bed filters decommissioned;
High-rate physical-chemical treatment upstream of existing shallow bed filters;
Standalone high-rate physical-chemical treatment;
Membrane bioreactor system; and
Series operation of dual filtration using existing filters followed by new deep bed filters
(Tasfi et al., 2010).
An engineering valuation method (see Appendix B.6) was used to determine the optimal
solution. It should be noted that the membrane bioreactor system was not investigated as it
was analyzed as part of secondary biological treatment. Each solution was ranked based on
several criteria. The most heavily weighted criterion is the capacity for phosphorus removal, as
the purpose of these systems is to remove total phosphorus. The following most heavily
weighted criteria are compatibility with other plant processes, and operational cost
effectiveness. Compatibility with other plant processes, such as the secondary treatment
process and UV disinfection system was considered to be important as the filtration system
must work in conjunction with them, given that its influent comes from secondary treatment,
and its effluent flows into the disinfection system. It is therefore necessary to consider the
effects of and on other processes in terms of additional size requirements, nutrient removal
requirements after secondary treatment, and total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations
entering the UV disinfection system. Operational cost effectiveness was weighted heavily as
operational costs are ongoing throughout the life of the system, and due to the staff-identified
limitation of available funds, it is important to minimize these costs. Minimizing the plant
footprint was also a heavily weighted concern due to space constraints and hydraulic
limitations.
Several alternatives ranked closely together, which would vary with sensitivity analysis, so a
combination solution of alternatives was generated. It is recommended that the existing filters
be expanded by adding a train with a dual media deep bed filters with upstream chemical
treatment as the optimal solution. Due to the stringent effluent objectives for phosphorus, it is
necessary to use chemical addition, which is a feasible and reliable method of phosphorus
removal. Alum is added into the conventional activated sludge tank near its downstream end to
allow for a minimum of a 10 s retention time (MOE, 2008). The addition of alum generates 1770
kg of sludge per day, which is a conservative estimate, as the alum dose will be decreased from

the calculated 85 mg/L after operational tests to take into account phosphorus removal in the
conventional activated sludge tank and filter bed, as well as the alum that is used in side
reactions with wastewater. From the Class EA evaluation and available literature on the topic, it
can be shown that this recommended solution meets the design constraints. The advantages
and disadvantages of chemical treatment followed by dual medium deep bed filters are as
follows:
Stringent total phosphorus effluent objective can be achieved.
Chemical addition and filtration are affordable, reliable, and widely accepted methods
of phosphorus removal from wastewater as opposed to membrane bioreactors.
The facility currently uses alum as a phosphorus control, thus existing structures and
controls can be utilized. Similar to existing layouts, the alum will be added to the
activated sludge tank so additional mixing tanks are not required, thus minimizing the
plant footprint and power requirements. This point of addition also enables most of
the sludge to settle out, improving filter run times.
Deep bed filters have a longer run time than existing filters, thus reducing the amount of
backwash water required.
The existing sand filters are still operational and are historically capable of achieving the
plant effluent objectives. They are also relatively recently built and so should not be
decommissioned.
Using the filters in series would further reduce phosphorus levels, but would result in a
larger plant footprint as more deep bed filters and travelling bridge filters would have
to be added.
Chemical addition has a low O&M cost.
Depth of filter bed allows for easier retrofit should adjustments to depth of anthracite
or sand layers be required if operational problems are encountered.
Declining-rate filters provide the best mode of gravity filtration, provided the design
head loss is not exceeded (WEF & ASCE, 1998).
The deep bed filter will further reduce TSS levels from secondary treatment to ensure
UV disinfection is effective and thus is compatible with other plant processes.
The addition of alum increases the volume of sludge, thus the secondary clarifier and
digester must by sized accordingly, thus increasing the plant footprint.
B.4.5 Disinfection
The disinfection of wastewater is necessary for the protection of the receiving water body
stream and potential downstream users. The Acton WWTP must meet the effluent limit for
E.coli monthly geometric mean density of 150 organisms/100 mL, and has an effluent objective
of 100 organisms/100 mL.
The two most common disinfection methods are the use of oxidizing chemicals and UV light.
While several disinfectants are available, the most widely used are chlorine, ozone, and UV light
(WEF, 1996). Issues with chlorination of WWTP effluent arise from the presence of chlorine
residuals, which are associated with toxicity to aquatic life. Ozonation has similar issues in that
residual ozone in the treated wastewater is toxic to aquatic life, although the residual
disappears quickly due to oxidation reactions with organic and inorganic materials in the water
(Stantec & Hydromantis, 2003). The Acton WWTP discharges to Black Creek, which is a sensitive
cold-water stream, and thus Halton Region has ruled out chlorination as a disinfection method.

Ozonation has also been ruled out due to a lack of full-scale operating data. UV irradiation is
therefore the disinfection method of choice (WEAO, 2010).
UV disinfection is a physical process, and thus is considered safer than using a chemical
disinfectant, it requires a relatively short contact time, and residual toxicity is not an issue.
Safety is only a concern when operators are directly exposed to the light at a close range. UV
light can be created when needed and does not require storage nor disposal. Despite its effect
on some chemical compounds, it is considered to have a negligible impact on the environment.
In comparison to chlorination, UV disinfection has a relatively high capital and operating and
maintenance (O&M) cost. The UV disinfection system is modular in design, and thus it is simple
to retrofit. The effectiveness of a UV disinfection system is highly dependent on the turbidity
and level of suspended solids in the wastewater (Stantec & Hydromantis, 2003). As the Acton
WWTP is a tertiary treatment plant, the influent turbidity and TSS levels to the UV disinfection
system should be very low, when operating within the design conditions.
UV lamps are characterized by their operating pressure and output level. UV lamps are
characterized by their operating pressure and output level. Three main types of lamps are
available: low pressure/low intensity (LP/LI), low pressure/high intensity (LP/HI), and medium
pressure/high intensity (MP/HI). Low pressure/high intensity (LP/HI) lamps were selected for
the retrofit as they allow for automatic cleaning and energy and lamp life conservation (Stantec
& Hydromantis, 2003). They have a higher UV output than LP/LI lamps, resulting in the delivery
of an effective dose with fewer lamps. MP/HI lamps have a shorter life span, require more
temperature regulation, and are typically used for larger plants.
The existing UV system is in an open channel, horizontal lamp configuration. The facility, even
while running near its peak capacity, has remained in compliance for its E.coli limit, showing that
this configuration provides adequate radial turbulence, and that the system works well with
upstream treatment. The horizontal configuration results in lower head loss than in a vertical
configuration. The supplier also recommends this configuration in its module design (Trojan
Technologies, 2009). It is therefore recommended that this configuration be maintained to
minimize costs.
B.4.6 Sludge Disposal
Sludge disposal is not a direct component of the wastewater facility. There are currently no
facilities for direct diversion of the sludge on-site. Currently, Acton ships their digested waste
off-site to be applied to land. To confirm whether or not this was the best decision to make for
the future, a decision matrix was created to investigate alternative methods of sludge disposal.
The most important factors weighted in the decision matrix were environmental impact, safety,
footprint, maintenance, capital and operational costs. These factors are similar to the priorities
expressed by Acton through their documents and site visit. The final decision was to continue
sending the sludge to fertilize agricultural land. This is highly beneficial because no new facilities
such as landfills need to be built.

B.5 DESIGN BASIS AND PROCESS BACKGROUND
This section shows supplementary information to this report.
B.5.1 Primary Clarifier
The primary clarifier is the first point of treatment after the headworks. A percentage of the
incoming TSS and BOD are removed through settling sediments and scum scraping. The
decommissioning of Plant A will remove one primary clarifier. To accommodate this removal
and the additional flow expected as Acton expands, two new primary clarifiers would be built.
The clarifiers will be rectangle, like the existing clarifiers and about the same size. Sludge from
the clarifiers will go directly to the digester.
Design parameters have mostly been taken from the MOE guidelines. Table 19 summarizes
these guidelines (MOE, 2008).
Table 19: MOE Design Criteria for Primary Sedimentation Tanks
Parameter ADF MDF
Surface Overflow Rate 27.5 m
3
/m
2
/d 55 m
3
/m
2
/d
HRT 1.5 2 hours
L: W Ratio At least 4:1
W: D Ratio 1:1 2.25:1
Min. SWD 3.5 m
Min. slope of troughs 1.4:1 with 1:1 at underside
Min. pipe velocity 0.3m/s
Max. hopper bottom 0.6 m
Min. hopper slope 1.7:1
(MOE, 2008)
B.5.2 Secondary Treatment: PFR Activated Sludge
The term secondary treatment typically encompasses the processes which remove the
biodegradable organic matter, whether they are in suspension or solution, and suspended
solids. In the case of the Acton WWTP expansion, this term encompasses the PFR activated-
sludge addition, and the secondary clarifier. The current plants (A and B) utilize CSTR activated-
sludge systems. In the decommissioning of Plant A, two tanks will be taken out of service. With
this volume removed, in addition to the projected wastewater flows, two larger tanks will need
to be built. The activated-sludge system that will be implemented in the Phase 1 expansion will
rather be a PFR set up in order to facilitate the potential for future desired BNR retrofitting. The
new tanks will be oriented such a way that the channels share a wall, in order to minimize the
tank footprint and reduce material cost. Table 20 shows the MOE design criteria for activated
sludge tanks.


Table 20: MOE Design Criteria for Activated-Sludge Aeration Tanks (MOE, 2008).
BOD loading 0.31 0.72 kg/m
3
d
HRT At least 6 hours
L:W Ratio At least 4:1 for PFR
W:D Ratio 1:1 to 2.25:1
Depth 3.5 4.6 m
Min. SWD 3 m
F:M Ratio 0.05 0.25 d
-1
SRT At least 10 days at 5C and 4 days at 20C
Oxygen Demand 1.0 kg O
2
per kg BOD
5
+ 4.6 kg O
2
per kg TKN
MLSS 3000 5000 mg/L

B.5.3 Secondary Clarification
Secondary clarification (also referred to as secondary sedimentation), occurs immediately
following the secondary biological stage, to allow the suspended solids to settle out. Plant A
currently has two secondary clarifiers that are not currently in service; therefore the future
design will only need to handle projected flow increase. Hindered settling will be used to size
the new sedimentation tanks, such that zone settling can be considered. Chain and flight
scrappers will be utilized to remove settled sludge continuously. Table 21 shows the MOE
design criteria for secondary clarifiers.
Table 21: MOE Design Criteria for Secondary Sedimentation Tanks
Surface Overflow Rate 0.68 1.19 m
3
/m
2
h
L: W Ratio At least 4:1
W: D Ratio 1:1 to 2.25:1
Min. SWD 3.6 4.6
Min. slope of troughs 1.4:1 with 1:1 at underside
Max. hopper bottom 0.6 m
Min. hopper slope 1.7:1
(MOE, 2008; WEF & ASCE, 1998).
B.5.4 Pump Capacity
Pump capacities were calculated for the primary and secondary clarifiers by dividing their sludge
production per tank by 0.6. This ensures the pumps are not operating near their peak capacity.
B.5.5 Types of Solids
Table 22 explains the type of solids produced in most of the facility.
Table 23 describes what each of these types of solids are (Metcalf & Eddy, 2003). The solids in
the treatment processes are routed to the digester. For this design it is assumed that the major
contributing sources to the digester are from the primary sedimentation and secondary

sedimentation processes. The assumption is based on literature that states these are the
greatest contributors and calculations that give sludge volume flows close to the expected 2-5%
of the incoming flow, allowing the other sources to be neglected in calculations.
Table 22: Sources of Solid Wastes from Facility
Process Types of Solids Comment
Screening Coarse solids Immediate disposal, no
further treatment
Truck to landfill
Grit removal Grit and scum Immediate disposal, no
further treatment
Truck to landfill
Primary sedimentation Primary solids and scum Solids removed from tank to
digester
Scum will be immediately
disposed of
Biological treatment Suspended solids To be flocculated in secondary
clarifier
Secondary sedimentation
(Activated Sludge with
Nitrification)
Secondary biosolids and scum Solids removed from tank to
digester
Some solids are reused for
seeding
Scum must be removed by
EPA standards
Scum will be immediately
disposed of
Solids processing (digestion) Digested solids To be used for land
application
(Metcalf & Eddy, 2003)
Table 23: Types of Solids
Type of solid Description
Screenings Changes with season
Very large organics and inorganics
Grit Often heavy inorganics with quick settling times
May contain fat and grease
Scum Floatable materials that are skimmed off the surface of the tank
Valves in small process facilities allow for scum to be pumped
Primary solids Gray and slimy with offensive odour
Easily digested (produces two times as much methane as
activated sludge product)
Secondary biosolids Should have light brown colour and inoffensive odour
If colour is dark brown with offensive odour, there was
inadequate aeration within the tank
Easily digested

Type of solid Description
Digested solids Dark brown to black colour
Non-offensive odour, similar to hot tar
B.5.6 Anaerobic Digestion
Acton currently uses a dual-stage digestion system. There are two digesters that work in series.
The first digester holds the hydrolysis and acidogenesis phases and then the sludge flows to the
second digester that holds the methanogenic phase. The first digester has a floating roof and
the second digester has a fixed roof to allow methane collection. Rather than building a new
digester to hold the all the future sludge, a new series of digesters will be built to operate in
parallel with the existing digester. There have been no concerns expressed with the existing
digester, so based on the assumptions, keeping the existing digesters in commission is valid.
Sludge dewatering will take place after the digested solids leave the secondary digesters.
The operation of the digesters is governed by the MOE guidelines (MOE, 2008) (Table 24).
Table 24: MOE Design Guidelines for Digesters
Parameter Digester 1 Digester 2
Temperature 55
O
C Exothermic heating only
Mixing Pump mixing No mixing
Min Diameter of Sludge Pipes 0.150 m
Side Wall to Diameter Ratio 0.3 0.7 : 1
Combined SRT Min 10 days

B.5.7 Tertiary Treatment - Phosphorus Removal
Phosphorus is present in wastewater in its dissolved form (orthophosphate), inorganic form
(reactive plus condensed or acid hydrolysable phosphate), and organic phosphate (ASA
Analytics, 2011). To remove phosphorus, a metal salt and/or polymer can be added to
precipitate phosphorus. The chemical addition point is expected to take place before primary
treatment, before the aeration tank, in the aeration tank, or just before the secondary clarifier.
As Acton's WWTP currently uses alum (Al
2
(SO
4
)
3
14H
2
O), it is assumed that alum is the
chemical of choice for phosphorus removal. Phosphorus reacts with aluminum in the alum
according to the following equation:
Al
3+
+ H
n
PO
4
3-n
AlPO
4(s)
+ nH
+

(Metcalf & Eddy, 2003)
Phosphorus is bound in the microorganisms as it is an essential cell component. It therefore can
be removed in the biological secondary treatment process through solids settling, or in filtration.
Filtration works by passing the wastewater through a filter bed, typically composed of sand,
which removes TSS. In dual media filtration, the water is passed through a more porous layer,
such as anthracite, before the sand layer. The cleaner water passes through the underdrain
system and flows to a small clear well prior to disinfection or is pumped to the backwash tank.
As TSS accumulates in the pore space in the filter bed, resistance increases. In declining rate
filtration, the water level in the filter increases, and the flow rate through the filter decreases.
When the water level reaches a certain height, the backwash cycle begins, which consists of air
scour, surface wash and bed fluidization. For air scour, air is pumped through the underdrain up

through the bed. Water for backwash comes from the previously filtered water stored in the
backwash tank. Surface wash is distributed through rotating nozzles at the same time as air
scour. The backwashing overlaps this period towards the end for maximum backwash
efficiency. The backwash water overflows a trough and is sent to the digester. After the
backwashing cycle, the filter must be left to ripen to regenerate the microbial surface and for
the particles to settle. During this period, the filter effluent will have high TSS levels, and so this
water must also be pumped to the digester until the TSS concentration in the effluent decreases
to the effluent limit.
B.5.8 Disinfection
Disinfection of WWTP effluent is required for the protection of public health by ensuring that
unacceptable levels of pathogens, such as Escherichia coli (E. coli), do not contaminate the
receiving body of water. This is accomplished through the selective inactivation or destruction of
pathogenic organisms (Stantec & Hydromantis, 2003). The existing and proposed effluent limits
and objectives for E. coli remain the same at 150 organisms/100 mL for the limit, and 100
organisms/100 mL (Tasfi et al., 2010).
UV irradiation has been selected as the method of choice for disinfection. UV light is produced
in mercury vapour lamps in wastewater disinfection systems, which emit light in the range of
250 nm and 270 nm. In this range, microorganisms are inactivated via photochemical damage to
their genetic material, rendering them unable to reproduce (Stantec & Hydromantis, 2003). As
discussed in Appendix B.4, three types of UV lamps are available, and a comparison of them is
shown in Table 25.
Table 25: Comparison of Different Lamp Types
Parameter LP/LI Lamps LP/HI Lamps MP/HI Lamps
Operating Pressure (torr) 10
-3
10
-2

(vacuum)
10
-3
10
-2

(vacuum)
10
2
10
4
(near
atmospheric)
Operating Temperature
(C) at Lamp Surface
40 - 50 90 - 250 600 - 800
State of Mercury Partially vapourized Partially vapourized Fully vapourized
UV Spectrum Monochromatic Monochromatic Polychromatic
Input Power (W) 75 190 - 1620 1250 - 5000
Germicidal Efficiency (%) 35 - 40 20 - 40 7 - 15
UV Output in the
Germicidal Range (W)
26.7 (64 inch) 40-500 87.5-750
Effective Lamp Life
(hours)
8000 13 000 5000 12 000 5000 8000
Power Modulation Not usually Usually Yes
Cleaning Method Manual Automatic Automatic
Typical WWTP Size Small to medium Small to very large Medium to very large
(Stantec & Hydromantis, 2003)
Several configurations are available for UV disinfection reactors. They can be open channel or
closed chamber. Within the reactors, lamps can be arranged horizontally or vertically, and
parallel or perpendicular to the flow. The most common configuration is horizontal lamp, open

channel. In this configuration, the lamps typically used are LP/LI or LP/HI. A module consists of 8
or 16 lamps. Modules are hung side-by-side across the width of a channel to form a bank.
Horizontal systems have multiple channels and multiple banks per channel for redundancy. In a
vertical lamp, open channel installation, lamps are staggered, thus creating more radial
turbulence, which decreases the impact of a failed lamp (Stantec & Hydromantis, 2003).
UV dose determines the effectiveness of the disinfection system, but other parameters must be
considered in the design of this system, namely:
Wastewater characteristics, especially those that influence UV transmittance;
Reactor UV lamp output and lamp density, which affects the average intensity;
Reactor configuration, which influences hydraulic characteristics, spacing of lamps, and
spatial relationship of the lamps to the reactor chamber; and
Residence time of wastewater in the reactor (Stantec & Hydromantis, 2003).
B.5.9 Gravity Belt Press
Table 26 summarizes the design parameters for the gravity belt press. These values were
obtained from Metcalf and Eddy text (Metcalf & Eddy, 2003), US EPA (US EPA, 2000) and
supplier catalogues.
Table 26: Gravity Belt Press Design Considerations
Parameter Value
Design Volumetric Flowrate 100 m
3
/d
Solid Concentration in influent 4%
Solid Concentration in Cake 25%
Solid Concentration in Filtrate 2%

Acton Wastewater Treatment Plant Design Proposal WEF Student Design Competition 2011

B.6 DECISION MATRICES
Table 27: Biological Treatment Decision Matrix

Power
Efficiency
Capital
Cost
Operational
Cost
Environmental
Impact
Operation and
Maintenance
Safety
Footprint
Minimization
Integration with
Existing Facility
Construction
Minimization
Lifespan
Support
Local
Economy
Phosphorus
Removal
Minimize
Sludge
Production
Nitrification/
Denitrification
Final Score
Weighting 0.05 0.13 0.11 0.08 0.07 0.03 0.01 0.1 0.01 0.1 0.01 0.14 0.02 0.14
Activated Sludge
Process
0.4 0.8 1 0.8 0.9 0.4 0.1 0.8 0.9 0.6 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.646
Membrane
Bioreactor
0.3 0.3 0.2 0.9 0.2 0.3 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.2 0.9 0.9 0.7 1 0.568
Biological
Nutrient
Removal
0.7 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.9 1 0.2 1 0.603
Sequencing
Batch Reactor
0.6 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.441
Rotating
Biological
Contactor
0.8 0.3 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.9 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.505
Integrated Fixed-
Film Activated
Sludge
0.7 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.5 0.2 0.7 0.591


Table 28: Sludge Dewatering Decision Matrix

Power
Efficiency
Capital Cost Operational Cost Environmental Impact
Operation and
Maintenance
Safety
Footprint
Minimization
Integration with
Existing Facility
Construction
Minimization
Lifespan
Minimize
Sludge
Production
Final Score

Weighting 0.14 0.21 0.25 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.03

Belt Press 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.7 0.5 0.9 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.621

Centrifuge 0 0.2 0.3 0.9 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.286
Sludge Bed 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.6 0 0.2 0.3 0.8 0.7 0.666
Do Nothing 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.572

Table 29: Sludge Disposal Decision Matrix

Power
Efficiency
Capital Cost
Operational
Cost
Environmental
Impact
Operation and
Maintenance
Safety
Footprint
Minimization
Integration
with Existing
Facility
Construction
Minimization
Final Score
Weighting 0.05 0.15 0.15 0.25 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.05 0.05
Landfill 0.8 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.8 0.9 0.6 1 1 0.565
Sludge Specific Landfill 0.8 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.9 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.326
Compost 0.8 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.9 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.396
Agriculture Land Application 0.8 0.9 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 1 1 0.712
Forest Land Application 0.8 0.9 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 1 1 0.662
Incineration 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.281


Table 30: Phosphorus Removal Decision Matrix

Power
Efficiency
Capital
Cost
Operational
Cost
Operation and
Maintenance
Footprint
Minimization
Integration
with Existing
Facility
Maximize
Compatibility
With Other Plant
Processes
Support
Local
Economy
Phosphorus
Removal
Minimize
Disposal
Cost
Final
Score
Weighting 0.025 0.1 0.15 0.1 0.125 0.075 0.15 0.025 0.175 0.075
Expand existing
shallow bed filters
0.01 0.05 0.09 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.09 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.57
Dual filtration with
existing shallow bed
filters
decommissioned
0.02 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.10 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.48
High rate physical-
chemical treatment
upstream existing
filters
0.01 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.02 0.16 0.02 0.59
Stand-alone high rate
physical chemical
treatment
0.02 0.07 0.11 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.09 0.01 0.51
Series operation with
dual filtration using
existing filters
followed by new deep
bed filters
0.01 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.09 0.02 0.14 0.06 0.51
Expansion of shallow
bed filters with dual
filter
0.02 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.11 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.56

Table 31: SCADA Decision Matrix

Power
Consumption
Simple to
Operate
Simple to
Install Safety Reliable
Cost
Installation
Cost
Maintenance Scalable Size Security Final Score
Weighting 0.05 0.2 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.04 0.01 0.05
Centralized 0.5 1 1 1 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.579
PC-PLC/DCS
Based Scada
0.5 0.7 0.5 1 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.658
PC-IED Based
System
0.5 0.8 0.9 1 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.9 0.5 0.632

APPENDIX C - PROCESS CONTROL AND
INSTRUMENTATION


C.1 PRIMARY CLARIFIER PROCESS
Process controls for the primary clarifier process are limited to sludge withdraw control and
simple process monitoring. Sludge blanket level is monitored by the process controller as
feedback for the sludge pump control. The control scheme involves a simple on/off control with
hysteresis to minimize excessive equipment wear.
C.2 SECONDARY PROCESS
The key control variable in the activated sludge process is dissolved oxygen to properly supply
air for the flocculation process. This process benefits immensely from automated control due to
the redundant nature of the control combined with the high procession required to keep the
process at maximum performance. Aeration is typically the most energy intensive process in
WWT and often accounts upwards of 50% of total plant energy requirements (Metcalf & Eddy,
2003). The immediate benefits of automated implementation for this process is increased
reliability, reduced cost, improved energy efficiency, and reduced man hours.
The economic considerations for the expansion of the activated sludge control system are
simple given the relatively low capital cost of automated control against the long term benefit
and energy savings estimated at 25 to 40% if not better presently (Flagen and Bracken, 1977).
Given the structure of the original aeration tanks, the expansion of the activated sludge process
as a plug-flow process would be feasible from a pragmatic stand-point. Given this, the system
would thus require a varying oxygen supply to account for the TOD profile along the tank. The
DO control system would deliver oxygen via a tapered grid of variable aeration nozzles which
allow for the control system to deliver targeted aeration to meet the appropriate TOD profile of
the Activated Sludge Reactor. As a feedback point several DO sensors will be setup along the
length of the tank to respond to the dynamic DO requirements.
The control strategy for meeting the DO target in the activated sludge process will be a feed-
forward, PI control scheme, using multiple DO measurement points along the process, and a
cascading controller method for control of the aeration pressure (Figure 6). This is an industry
standard method and has the benefits of fast reaction time, high degree of control, and stability
in the presence of disturbance. The PI portion of the control algorithm will attempt to match the
measured DO variable to a predetermined set-point ideal for the coagulation process which is
typically 2 mg/l.

Figure 6: Activated Sludge Process Control
There will likely be no change in the method of RAS control for the purposes of this expansion,
but because of the installation of additional aeration tanks in the activated sludge process, an
upgrade to the return sludge instrumentation will also need to be completed. Due to a shortage
of information on the current Acton WWTP RAS control method, the equipment upgrade is
based on the assumption that the current system is using an automatic ratio-based RAS control
system. Ratio based control is a commonly used RAS control strategy, and simply makes the
pumped RAS a direct function of the influent rate. The disadvantage to this control is the
inability to account for changes in the influent TSS and BOD properties, but with the oversight of
experienced operators is a stable and inexpensive control strategy. Upgrades to current system
would include additional sludge pumps for the increased load, additional flow sensors, and
piping to the new clarifiers.
C.3 TERTIARY PROCESS
Maximizing lifetime of the UV bulbs while maintaining proper UV dosage is the key control
objective in the disinfection process. Given the fragile nature of the UV lamps, the turning on-off
process should be minimized as much as possible to save on cost, and energy. The bulbs cannot
be left on indefinitely however, as banks are activated and deactivated to account for variable
flow, and save on energy costs. To automate this process the UV rods have been divided into a
set of parallel banks, which can be shut off and on by means of actuated valves. The UV control
strategy is based on input flow rate, and activates one of the three banks based on the flow
rate, leaving only one bank open and active when flow is minimal, and all banks open and active
when flow reaches a maximum. This logic can be seen in more detail in the tertiary P&ID in
Appendix A.
Additional control will be required for the automated cleaning process of the UV lamps. The
Trojan UV3000PLUS is manufactured with a self-cleaning mode which removes any excess build
up on the lamps, when active or deactivate. This is not a regular process and is less time critical
than most processes in WWT. As a result no feedback loop will be required for rod cleaning, and
instead a simple timer will suffice for the timing mechanism. To monitor the quality of these

cleans, and account for any defective bulbs, UV intensity sensors will also be equipped at each
bank to interface with the SCADA system and monitor for any failures.
C.4 DIGESTION PROCESS
Factors to be considered in the automation and control of digesters are:
Temperature;
Sludge feeding and withdrawal;
HRT;
SRT;
Mixing;
MLSS;
Gas production;
Sludge level; and
pH.
Sludge loading and withdrawal is perhaps the most important control objective, and in the case
of Acton WWTP will require a parallel feed control strategy so that both primary digesters are
regularly fed. To do this, the primary tanks will have to be fed sequentially using a PD sludge
pump, and automated valves. Additionally, sludge loading into each tank will have to be
monitored and totalized so that an equivalent can later be withdrawn from the tanks. This
process will be controlled by a PLC, but will require some operator oversight to confirm proper
loading rates. Again, due to the variable nature of the sludge production, the digesters will have
to be loaded at operator set time intervals, at least every hour.
Sludge mixing and temperature control also has to be considered in the process. To achieve this
control, timer-controlled sludge pumps are used to withdraw sludge from the bottom of the
primary digesters and is recycled to the top. This cycle is also fed through steam powered heat
exchangers which helps control the digester temperature set point. The heated steam is
produced by the already existing biogas and boiler infrastructure which the new digester set will
contribute gas to. For a more complete overview of the digestion control and monitoring
processes refer to Appendix A.
C.5 MAINTENANCE
Regular maintenance can represent a significant portion of staff operational requirements, but
can also significantly increase life span of instruments, and improve efficiency of the plant. It is
recommended that to accompany the Acton WWTP expansion, an upgraded maintenance
management system be implemented to keep track of equipment service requirements and
repair work orders. Various computerized maintenance management systems (CMMS) are
available, and widely recognized as improving plant operations usually at a negligible price on
the scale of plant upgrades (WEF, 2007). For the purposes of such a system the software
package MaintiMizer LT is recommended as a low-cost and high regarded option in maintenance
management. Table 32 is a list of regular maintenance that will have to be performed for plant
upgrades.

Table 32: Regular Maintenance
Company Name Type Regular Service
(cleaning & refills)
Maintenance
ChemScan 3150 Multi-Analyzer 2-4 weeks 2 years
ABB Aquamaster Flow meter 3 years
Danfoss EVITA Oxy DO sensor 2 months 6 months
Royce 7110/20
Continuous Series
Sespended Solids
Sensor
1 month 6-12 months
Royce SD-40 Scatterd-
Light
Density Meter
Allen-
Bradley
700-FE Timer
Watson-
Marlow
Brendal
Perisatalic PD
Pump
Sludge Pump
Napier-Reid BIO-HTX Heat Exchanger
Siemens Sitrans Probe LR Level Transmitter none none
Rosemount 664 TT Temp
Transmitter
quarterly
Rosemount Modle 398 TUph pH meter 2 months


APPENDIX D MODELING


Modeling of the final Phase 1 design was completed using modeling software STOAT
produced
by the WRc. The model was constructed using sizing values determined by the design phase,
and the input parameters were characterized by the present Acton influent properties provided,
and the desired flow rates for the phase1 expansion (Table 33). Additionally, to observe the
effects of dynamic load changes on the model, each of these parameters were varied by
sinusoidal inputs, with the design values below being the average.

Table 33: Model Design Basis
Influent Parameter Unit Amount
Influent Av m
3
/d 5600
Influent Max m
3
/d 9690
BOD inflow mg/L 220
TSS inflow mg/L 239
NH
3
mg/L 20
TP mg/L 4

The STOAT

model was created using the final parameters of the plant determined for Phase 1.
This model was simplified to look only at the main wastewater train, and not to address solids
stabilization and disposal concerns in the plant. For this reason the anaerobic digestion phase
was not included in the design, and instead primary sedimentation, activated sludge, and
secondary sedimentation processes were considered.
For the primary clarifier the STOAT
BOD model was used, which is based on the Lessard and

Beck dynamic model (Lessard and Beck, 1988). This model primarily addresses the dynamics of
settleable and non-settleable particulates in a mixed primary tank, and models plug-flow
characteristics by chaining together several smaller mixed models. The model and its input
parameters are described below in matrix format. The shortcoming of this model is that sludge
buildup is not accounted for, and is assumed pumped away automatically. Given that these
tanks will be automated, and with the assumption that the pumps do not breakdown or become
overloaded, this is a valid model for the primary clarifier. Table 34 shows the model dynamics.
Table 34: Model Dynamics Equations for Primary Process
Si S Xi X
dS/dt Q/V -Q/V
dX/dt Q/V -Q/V - V
s
(A/V + )

State Vector and Time variant terms
Si mg/L Soluble and non-settleable particulates in influent
S mg/L Soluble and non-settleable particulates
Xi mg/L Settleable particulate components in influent
X mg/L Settleable particulate components:


Time invariant terms
- scouring parameter usually 0
Vs - settling rate determined experimentally
A m
2
Tank surface area
V m
3
Tank volume

The model used for the aeration tanks of the activated sludge process was the IAWQ1 activated
sludge model. This model is an extension on the ASAL1 activated sludge model to incorporate an
anoxic zone into the model, but many of the ASAL1 properties remain. The original model was
developed by Jones (Jones, 1977). This model was extended by Downing, and later by
Wooldridge, to incorporated Monod growth kinetics, and account for non-viable bacterial
population respectively. These developments ultimately led to the ASAL1 and IAWQ1 which
were used to model the activated sludge process of the plant. A simplified matrix representation
of the ASAL1 differential equations can be seen below. This model accounts for the mass of
viable and non-viable autotrophs and heterotrophs, Soluble BOD, DO, phosphate, nitrate and
ammonia. The model parameters can be seen below:
*VARIABLE,in Indicates influent characteristic
Ss mg/L Soluable BOD
Xh,v mg/L Viable hetrotrophs
Xh,nv mg/L Non-viable hetrotrophs
Xa,v mg/L Viable autotrophs
Xa,nv mg/L Non-viable autotrophs
So mg/L Dissolved oxygen
Xt mg/L Suspended Solids
Sn mg/L Ammonia
- Monod growth kinematics
- Michaelis-Menten enzyme kinetics
K - Half-rate decline
Ya - Yield of autotrophs
Yh - Yield of heterotrophs
M - Media characteristic number
Lr - S
o
/(K
o
+S
o
)
Similar to the primary clarifier model, this model assumes a completely mixed reactor. To
account for plug-flow which was chosen for activated sludge in the final design, a chain of
smaller models was created to properly modal the reactor dynamics. Additionally, because
anoxic zones are not considered in this model, the IAWQ1 model is an extension on this to
account for this shortcoming. Another shortcoming of this model is assumption of a constant
volume. Given that the hydraulic design of the plant has been constructed to handle maximum
day flows, and therefore negligible hydraulic buildup short of any failures, this bassumption can
be made. This model also ignores the breakdown of particulate BOD into soluble , but again, this
process can be considered negligible for our purposes. Table 35 shows the model dynamics
equations for the secondary clarifier.

Table 35: Model Dynamics Equations for Secondary Process
Ss,in Ss Xh,v,in Xh,v
dSs/dt Q -Q -(h/yh)*V
dXh,v/dt Q -Q+h*V
dXh,nv/dt
dXa,v/dt
dXa,nv/dt
dSo/dt -(h/yh)
Xt 1
dSn/dt

Xh,nv,in Xh,nv Xa,v,in Xa,v
dSs/dt -h*V
dXh,v/dt
dXh,nv/dt Q -Q-Kd*V
dXa,v/dt Q -Q+a*V
dXa,nv/dt
dSo/dt -h -Yo,nh3*(a/ya)
Xt 1 1
dSn/dt -(a/ya)*V

Xa,nv,in Xa,nv So,in So
dSs/dt
dXh,v/dt
dXh,nv/dt
dXa,v/dt
dXa,nv/dt Q -Q-Kd*V
dSo/dt -a Q/V -Kl*a
Xt 1
dSn/dt -a*V

So,c Xt Sn,in Sn
dSs/dt
dXh,v/dt
dXh,nv/dt
dXa,v/dt
dXa,nv/dt
dSo/dt Kl*a Mo2*LR
Xt
dSn/dt Q -Q

The secondary clarifier model used in STOAT
has similar dynamics equations to the primary.

The key modification in the model is that RAS and WAS are considered, and thus sludge build-up
which was missing from the primary model is considered in the secondary. RAS return rates
were calculated based on inflow ratio, and wasting rates were set at a constant value.
The final STOAT
model was simplified to contain only these three processes in the plant layout.
This simplification was made so that focus on the BOD removal process could be primarily
addressed. Sludge wasting and phosphorus treatment were not considered in this model. The
STOAT
schematic can be seen below in Figure 7.

Figure 7: STOAT
schematic
Initial results of the simulation suggest that the final design parameters of the expansion are
sufficient to meet effluent quality requirements, in terms of BOD and ammonia requirements
for the project (see Figure 8). An important result to note which ties into some of the
assumptions made prior is that MLSS is above the required effluent limits in this simulation. This
result is correct, but only demonstrates water quality post-secondary clarifier, and the model
does not consider any filtration process. For this reason the elevated MLSS is addressed in the
plant design. Final steady state values in the simulation show 1.5mg/L in total BOD, 0.1mg/L in
total ammonia, and 14mg/L in suspended solids.

Figure 8: Model Outputs
Table 36 shows how the modeling results in comparison to the proposed effluent limits and
objectives.
Table 36: Model Results in Comparison to Proposed Effluent Objectives and Limits
Parameter Objective Limit Model
BOD
5
2 mg/l 5 mg/l 1.5 mg/l
TSS 3 mg/l 5 mg/l 14 mg/l pre-filtration.
Predicted to meet
objective with
filtration introduced
to model.
Ammonia 1 mg/l 2 mg/l (non-freezing)
4 mg/l (freezing)
0.1 mg/l


APPENDIX E - COST ESTIMATE


E.1 Capital Investment
The total project cost estimate was prepared through research of generic pricing for various
WWTP components, information provided by our consultant advisor, and typical cost multipliers
provided in standard texts and in reports from other WWTPs. A preliminary estimate of major
equipment costs can be seen in Table 37. Concrete costs are shown in
Table 38. Control and instrumentation costs are shown in Table 39. Total project costs are
shown in
Table 40 with a project percentage breakdown.
Table 37: Major Equipment Cost Summary for Phase 1
Primary Clarifier
Component Item Qty Vendor Unit Cost
($)
Subtotal
($)
Install
% Total ($)
Chain and
Flight
Sigma Plus Flights
1 Envirex 80000 50000 0 80000
Sludge Pump
Peristaltic PD
Pump 4 Watson-Marlow Brendal 8000 32000 0 32000
Troughs Troughs 6 Enviroquip 10000 60000 0 60000
Weir plates
V-notch weir
plates 12 Enviroquip 10000 120000 0.5 126000
Totals 298000
Aeration Tank
($)
Subtotal
($)
Install
% Total ($)
Aeration Fine
Bubble Disc
Diffusers
Stanford 9 Disc
AFD270
Stamford Scientific
International
60000 0 60000
Total 60000
Secondary Clarifier
($)
Subtotal
($)
Install
% Total ($)
Chain and
Flight
Sigma Plus Flights
1 Envirex 70000 50000 0 70000
Sludge Pump
Peristaltic PD
Troughs Troughs 6 Enviroquip 10000 60000 0 60000
Weir plates
V-notch weir
plates 12 Enviroquip 10000 120000 0.5 126000
Scum pipes Scum pipes 100000 0 100000
Total 388000
Filter
($)
Subtotal
($)
Install
% Total ($)
Underdrain
Leopold
Underdrain Type
S 1 ITT Water & Wastewater 60000 80000 0.5 84000
Media Sand 15m
3
U.S. Silica 100/m
3
1500 0 1500
Media Anthracite 24 m
3
U.S. Silica 100/m
3
2400 0 2400
Trough 1 Tetra Technologies 40000 0 40000
Total 128000
Disinfection System
($)
Subtotal
($)
Install
% Total ($)

System
Lamps/modules,
automatic level
controller,
intensity probe,
control system Trojan Technologies 620000 0 620000
Total 620000
Alum System
($)
Subtotal
($)
Install
% Total ($)
Storage Tanks 2 General Alum & Chemical 100000 200000 0.4 208000
Solution Tank 1 100000

100000 0.4 104000
Total 312000
Digester
($)
Subtotal
($)
Install
% Total ($)
Digester Heater BIO-HTX 1 Napier-Reid 500000 500000 0 500000
Sludge Pump
Peristaltic PD
Digester Check
Valve Diaphragm Valve 1 Red Valve 96000 96000 0 96000
Total 628000
Digester
($)
Subtotal
($)
Install
% Total ($)
Standby power
generator
Standby diesel
power generator
with outdoor
housing 1 100000 0 100000
Total 100000
MAJOR EQUIPMENT TOTALS: 2524000

Table 38: Concrete Cost Summary for Phase 1
Component
Number of
Components
Volume of
Component (m
3
) Unit Cost ($/yd
3
) Cost ($)
Primary Clarifier
Wall A 3 34.40 300 40,494
Wall B 4 8.60 300 13,498
Base 2 64.00 200 33,484
Baffle 2 2.13 600 3,348
Subtotal 90,824
Aeration Basin
Wall A 3 31.80 300 37,434
Wall B 4 52.00 300 81,616
Wall C 6 14.40 500 56,503

Base 2 222.60 200 116,460
Subtotal 292,013
Secondary Clarifier
Wall A 2 24.46 300 19,197
Wall B 1 2.45 600 1,920
Wall C 1 24.46 300 9,599
Wall D 2 54.63 300 42,868
Base 1 259.90 200 67,987
Subtotal 141,571
Filter
Base 1 37.24 200 9,742
Head wall 1 13.10 300 5,140
Side walls 2 25.68 300 20,150
End wall 1 13.10 300 5,140
Weir 1 3.37 500 2,205
Influent Base 1 5.20 100 680
Subtotal 43,057
UV Channel
Head wall 2 0.14 600 216
Side walls 3 2.67 600 6,285
End wall 2 0.14 600 216
Subtotal 6,717
Digester
Digester 1 1 54.59 300 21,418
Digester 2 1 127.33 300 49,963
Base 1 1 50.27 200 13,149

Base 2 + Roof 1 245.44 200 64,204
Subtotal 148,735
TOTAL 722,917

Table 39: Control and Instrumentation Cost Summary for Phase 1
Sludge Stabalization Control and Instrumentation
Code Description Manufacturer Model Num Capital ($) Install % Total ($)
I-1 Flow Meter ABB Aquamaster 1 5000 0.5 7500
I-13 Temperature
Indicator
Rosemount 664 TT
1 700 0.5 1050
I-19 High-Level
Alarm
RACO Verbatim
1 1000 0.5 1500
I-22 pH Indicator Rosemount Model 398 TUph 1 2000 0.5 3000
I-23 Level Indicator Siemens Sitrans Probe LR 1 3500 0.5 5250
I-24 Temperature
Indicator
Rosemount 664 TT
1 700 0.5 1050
I-25 High-Level
Alarm
RACO Verbatim
1 1000 0.5 1500
I-26 Pressure
Indicator

1 1000 0.5 1500
I-5 Level Indicator Siemens Sitrans Probe LR 1 3500 0.5 5250
I-6 pH Indicator Rosemount Model 398 TUph 1 2000 0.5 3000
PD-
1,2,3,4
Sludge Pump Watson-
Marlow
Brendal
Peristaltic PD Pump
1 18000 0.5 27000
CHOPX Sludge
Recirculation
Pump
Watson-
Marlow
Brendal
Centrifugal
1 18000 0.5 27000
V-1,2 Pressure
Release Valve

2 8000 0.2 19200
V-3,4 Sludge Pinch
Valve
Red Valve
2 900 0.2 2160
BP-1 Belt Press PACT DNYA BELT PRESS 1 200000 0.4 200000
MP-1 Metering Pump Hayward
Gordon
DMP
1 2000 0.5 3000
Totals 331460
Secondary Control and Instrumentation
I-28
Dissolved
Oxygen Meter Danfoss EVITA Oxy 1 3000 0.4 4200
I-30
Dissolved
I-31
Dissolved
I-34
Pressure
Indicator -
Multi-Channel ABB N-AA 1 5000 0.4 7000
I-46
Pressure
Indicator -
Multi-Channel ABB N-AA 1 5000 0.4 7000
I-50
Dissolved

I-54 Flow Meter ABB Aquamater 1 5000 0.5 7500
I-56
Sludge density
meter 1 5000 0.4 7000
I-57
Suspended
Solids Meter Royce 7110/20 Continuous Series 1 5000 0.4 7000
I-58
Suspended
Solids Meter Royce 7110/20 Continuous Series 1 5000 0.4 7000
I-60 Sludge Level Cerlic CBX 1 5000 0 5000
PD-1,2 Sludge Pump
Watson-
Marlow
Brendal Peristaltic PD Pump 2 8000 0 16000
AB-1 Air pressurizer 4 8000 0 32000
I-53 Level Indicator Siemens Sitrans Probe LR 1 5000 0 5000
I-140 Alarm RACO Verbatim 1 1000 0.5 1500
MP-2,3 Metering Pump
Hayward
Gordon DMP 2 2000 0.5 6000
M-1 Mixer
Hayward
Gordon Top Entry Mixer 1 5000 0.5 7500
Total 130800
Tertiary Control and Instrumentation
I-61 Flow Indicator ABB Aquamaster 1 5000 0.5 7500
I-72
UV Dosage
Indicator 1 0
I-73 UV Control 1 0
UV-
1/2/3 UV Banks Trojan UV3000 Plus 1 0
AB-1 Air Blower 1 10000 0.5 15000
CP-1
Centrifugal
Pump 1 8000 0 8000
Total 95500
Primary Control and Instrumentation
I-101 Density Meter 1 2000 0.4 2800
I-85
Sludge Level
Indicator Cerlic CBX 1 2000 0.4 2800
I-87 Density Meter 1 5000 0.4 7000
I-90
High-Level
Alarm RACO Verbatim 1 1000 0.5 1500
I-99 Sludge Level Cerlic CBX 1 2000 0.4 2800
Total 130800
PLCs and SCADA Interfacing Costs

Local PLCs Allen-Bradley SLC 5/05 10 2900 0.4 40600
Motor Control
Center GE 1 10000 0.5 15000
SCADA Wiring
and Interfacing 1 15000
Total 70600
CONTROL & INSTRUMENTATION TOTALS: 716760

Table 40: Project Capital Cost Summary for Phase 1 Expansion
Parameter
% of Equipment
Cost Cost ($)
Equipment Cost + Concrete Cost + Control
and Instrumentation 120 3,963,677
Equipment Installation 50 1,651,532
Process mechanical piping 65 2,146,992
Electrical 10 330,306
Buildings 20 660,613
Yard Improvements 10 330,306
Service Facilities 70 2,312,145
Engineering and Supervision 35 1,156,073
Project Management and Overhead 40 1,321,226
SUBTOTAL EQUIPMENT COSTS 80 13,872,870
Misc. and unidentified equipment 10 1,734,109
Misc. and unidentified process mechanical 5 867,054
Misc. and unidentified electrical / I&C 5 867,054
TOTAL EQUIPMENT COSTS 65 17,341,088
Retrofit and Demolition 5 867,054
Contractor Overhead and Profit 20 3,641,628
Market and Construction Contingency 10 2,184,977
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 24,034,747


The capital cost estimation for Phase 2 of the expansion was conducted in a similar manner as
Phase 1, using similar values and adjusting quantities based on the conceptual design. The total
project costs for Phase 2 are shown in Table 41.
Table 41: Project Capital Cost Summary for Phase 2 Expansion
Parameter
% of Equipment
Cost Cost ($)
Equipment + Concrete + Control and
Instrumentation 120 1,673,157
Equipment Installation 50 697,149
Process mechanical piping 65 906,293
Electrical 10 139,430
Buildings 20 278,859
Yard Improvements 10 139,430
Service Facilities 70 976,008
Engineering and Supervision 35 488,004
Project Management and Overhead 40 557,719
SUBTOTAL EQUIPMENT COSTS 80 5,856,049
Misc. and unidentified equipment 10 732,006
Misc. and unidentified process mechanical 5 366,003
Misc. and unidentified electrical / I&C 5 366,003
TOTAL EQUIPMENT COSTS 50 7,320,062
Retrofit and Demolition 10 732,006
Contractor Overhead and Profit 20 1,610,414
Market and Construction Contingency 20 1,932,496
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 11,594,978


E.2 Operations and Maintenance
The operations and maintenance costs of the Acton WWTP Phase 1 Expansion are estimated at
$3.4 million per year. This is divided into:
Manpower (i.e. labourors, lab testers and supervisors)
Electrical power (i.e. lighting, SCADA system and other instrumentation)
Chemicals (i.e. alum dosing, polymer addition)
Waste transport and disposal (transportation to and storage before agricultural
application)
Maintenance (i.e. repairing, painting, cleaning and replacing parts).
The estimations were taken from an operations cost for the Juan Diaz WWTP which operates in
a similar manner to the proposed Acton WWTP (Hazen and Sawyer Environmental Engineers
and Scientists, 2003). The scaling from the Juan Diaz WWTP to Actons predicted flow was
calculated with the following equation:

ActonWWTPvalue
OtherWWTPvalue
=
OtherWWTPcapacity
0.6
ActonWWTPcapacity

where capacities were based on average daily flowrates.
The 2021 prediction is expected to be increased at 4% a year according to the Engineering
News-Record Construction index (Engineering News-Record, 2011).
Direction from our faculty advisor and consultant advisor indicated that a typical rule of thumb
for annual operations and maintenance costs should be approximately $0.35/day per m
3
/day of
flow for a small-to-medium sized plant with conventional activated sludge and tertiary
treatment. This rule of thumb was used to scale the annual operations and cost estimate, while
maintaining the cost category distribution from Juan Diaz WWTP (Hazen and Sawyer
Environmental Engineers and Scientists, 2003).

APPENDIX F MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATION
SHEETS


Watson-Marlow Brendal
Peristaltic PD Pump
United States of America
Telephone 800 282 8823
Fax: 978 658 0041
Email
support@wmbpumps.com


CHOPX Chopper Pumps
HAYWARD GORDON
Solids Handling Pumps
6660 Campobello Rd, Mississauga,
Ontario
L5N 2L9
Tel: (905) 567-6116 Fax: (905) 567-1706
www.haywardgordon.com


Stamford Scientific International
Standard 9" Disc - AFD270
Fine Bubble Disc Diffusers

Stamford Scientific International, Inc.
4 Tucker Drive,
Poughkeepsie, NY 12603 USA.
Tel: +1- 845-454-8171
Fax: +1- 845-454-8094
email: info@stamfordscientific.com


PACT
BELT PRESS WITH GRAVITY
THICKENER

PACT WATER & WASTEWATER TREATMENT EQUIPMENT
65 Huaqing Road, Huazhuang Town, Binhu District, Wuxi
City,
Jiangsu Province, China 214131
Tel+86-510-8560 1186
Fax+86-510-8560 8396
www.pact-tont.com
info@pact-tont.com

Hayward Gordon
Polymer & Chemical Feed Systems

TORONTO (HEAD OFFICE)
5 Brigden Gate
Halton Hills ON L7G 0A3
T: (905) 693-8595
F: (905) 693-1452
info@haywardgordon.com

Trojan
UV3000plus

Head Office (Canada)
3020 Gore Road
London, Ontario, Canada N5V 4T7
Telephone: (519) 457-3400
Fax: (519) 457-3030
www.trojanuv.com


Caterpillar
D I E S E L G E N E R A T O R SE
T

TOROMONT CAT
290 INDUSTRIAL RD
CAMBRIDGE ONTARIO, N3H 4R7

Phone numbers: 1 519 650-1211
GENERAL INFO
1 519 650-1372 GENERAL INFO (FAX)


APPENDIX G DESIGN CALCULATIONS


G.1 ASSUMPTIONS
Calculations for the sizing of the components have been included in an Excel spreadsheet. The
equations used for each calculation step are written in the Notes section of the spreadsheet.
Assumptions for values are also written in this spreadsheet. Assumptions that are very
important and/or require further explanation are included in this section.
G.1.1 Primary Clarifier
Pertinent assumptions made for the primary clarifier include:
Solid content are 2% with a specific gravity of 2.6 and diameter of 0.0001m.
BOD concentrations returning from digester and sludge drying belt are negligible in
comparison to the BOD concentrations from raw sewage.
Inflows are raw sewage flow from grit chamber, supernatant flow from digester and belt
press filtrate.
Inflow to the existing tanks and new tanks are governed by volume proportions (i.e. the
new tanks get more flow than the existing tanks).
G.1.2 Aeration Tank
Pertinent assumptions made for the activated-sludge system include:
Design at 10C will suffice, as this is the upper bound for water temperature range
provided, and therefore represents the lowest dissolved oxygen conditions the tank will
experience.
A conservative value of 4000 mg/L for the MLSS in the aeration basin.
NO
x
percentage of 80%.
Percent oxygen concentration leaving the aeration tank is 19%.
Residual alkalinity concentration required to maintain a pH of 6.8 to 7.0 is 80 g/m
3
as
CaCO
3
.
Assumed zero salinity of influent water.
The return sludge mass concentration is 8000 g/m
3
, due to the assumption that the
sludge is moderate settling/thickening.
The hydraulic application rate at average flow for secondary clarifier is 22 m
3
/m
2
d,
which is within the range of 16 to 28 (Table 8-7, Metcalf & Eddy, 2003).
G.1.3 Secondary Clarifier
Pertinent assumptions made for the secondary clarifier include:
The Solids Flux Analysis approach sufficiently applies to the sizing of the secondary
clarifier for this facility.
The graph used to produce the solids flux curve is based off of a text example (Henze,
van Loosdrecht, Ekama, & Brdjanovic, 2008), however it is assumed that it applies for
the preliminary design of this plant expansion. This graph is shown below in Figure 9.

Calculated clarifier depth was found to 2.45 m, however Design Guidelines for Sewage
Works recommend a depth between 3.6 and 4.6 m therefore 4 m was chosen.

Figure 9: Hindered settling Solids Flux Curve used for Secondary Clarifier Sizing
G.1.4 Phosphorus Removal
Filtration assumptions include:
Filter is sized for a temperature of 5C although it is housed indoors for a worst case
scenario.
The existing filters are sized to handle 75% of the current maximum day flow each so one
additional filter should be adequate to handle the additional flow.
The water entering the filtration system is fairly clean and thus backwash for the proposed
filter occurs once every two days.
The time required to fill the backwash tank with one backwash water volume is 30 minutes.
Alum dosing assumptions include:
The design alum dose should be the historical dosage in which that dosage or less was
delivered 95% of the time (see Figure 10).

Figure 10: Plant B Alum Dose Determination

Liquid alum can be stored for 28 days without degradation in quality. Storage for at least
28 days is preferred.
The existing plant has enough alum storage space and vessels for half of the required
amount of alum, as well as one existing solution tank.
Wastewater characteristics will remain similar for future flows.
G.1.5 UV System
The UV system was designed with the following assumptions:
The UV system was sized with 3 channels for the entire plant. The existing plant has
only one operational channel.
The minimum UV transmittance and design dose were selected based from guidelines,
but pilot tests must be run to determine the true requirements.
G.1.6 Anaerobic Digester
Pertinent assumptions made for the digester include:
With proper digester instrumentation, the digesters will be constantly fed and ensure
the digester is always seeded with sufficient microbes for digestion.
The incoming solids have an OM content of 85%. 15% is inert.
Destroyed OM is 55%.
Methane is about 70% of biogas from efficiency of dual-digester.

G.1.7 Hydraulics
Hydraulics assumptions include:
The proposed system ties into the existing outfall.
Pipe diameters do not change on either side of valves, thus head loss through valves is
minimal.
Baffles could be represented as orifices.
Piping follows the Phase 1 expansion piping layout.
There is no head loss in the clarifiers.
The aeration basin can be modeled as open channel flow. Head loss due to aeration was
neglected.
G.1.8 Electrical Upgrade
Energy costs have been estimated from 2.2MJ/m3 4.8MJ/m
3
for typical WWTPs (Baruth,
2010). Assuming this plant operates on the upper end of that range, increased peak flow energy
requirements were calculated as 4.8MJ /m
3
times the difference in peak flow requirements.

Q= Q
phase1
Q
current
=
1545m
3
d
P =
4.8MJ
m
3

1545m
3
d

0.01157kW
MJ
d
= 85kW

150kW was chosen for safety factor and to account for future expansion in Phase 2.
G.2 Design Equations
The governing equation used for the design of the Acton WWTP expansion was the standard
mass balance:

Through manipulation of this equation, each element of the treatment plant has been designed.
The objective of the design is to ensure the mass coming in will equal the mass going out.
Effective and efficient treatment plants should not accumulate mass.
Empirical equations were used to size some components including the secondary treatment,
secondary clarifier (also with use of a settling curve) and anaerobic digester. These equations
have been taken from Metcalf and Eddy (2003).
Appendix B verifies the values entered into the equations based on assumptions, guidelines, and
other justifications made throughout the report. One of the most important criteria is to ensure
the plant expansion will be compatible with the existing plant. The exact use of each equation
used below can be seen in the Excel spreadsheets in Appendix G.
Holding tanks, such as the clarifiers, have been designed based on appropriate retention times.
The volume, V, was based on the hydraulic retention time, HRT, and flow, Q.

Mass balance and volumetric flow of the sludge through the pumps were determined using
density calculations.

Where is density; P is percent; and S is specific gravity.
BOD inflow to the clarifier is calculated through a mass flow balance based on flow from the
supernatant of the digester and inflow to the facility.

The flow required for calculation of pipe sizing, were equated with the volumetric flow
equation.

Where Q is volumetric flow; A is cross-sectional area; and v is the velocity through the pipe.
G.3 Factors of Safety
Factors of safety and design flows were used throughout component design to account for
emergencies. These values and design flows were based on the MOEs Design Guidelines for
Sewage Works, the facility was designed for peak hour or maximum day flows.
G.4 Calculation Spreadsheets
The following spreadsheets show the detailed design calculations.

Primary Sludge
4,221 kg/d
Primary
Sedimentation
Influent
10,000,080 kg/d
Secondary Sludge
176,953 kg/d
Raw Sewage
Solid Waste
Holding Tank
Secondary Digester
Land Application
Boiler
Heat Back to Plant
Primary Digester
Black Creek
Effluent
Secondary
Sedimentation
Deep Bed
Filter
RAS
WAS
Activated Sludge
Alum
Polymer
Digester Loading
181,174 kg/d
To Press
96,621 kg/d
UV
Treatment
Centrate
9,740 kg/d Supernatant
84,821 kg/d
Waste water
Alum
Sludge
Solid Waste
Biogas
Heat
Belt Press
Compressed
Air
Alum/Polymer Treatment
Compressed Air
Screening Grit Removal
Backwash Inputs Outputs
1
1 1
1
03/21/2011 1 Adam Erb
Adam Erb
Adam Erb
21/03/11
2
1 1
Phase 1
PFD
Alexandra Chan
SLIT
I-85
FIT
I-86
dIT
I-87
I-88
FC
I-89
LSHL
I-90
KC
I-91
HS
I-92
Hand/Off/Auto
HS
I-93
SL
HS
I-94
Delay
HS
I-95
FR
LIT
I-96
FIT
I-97
Digester
Activated Sludge
FIT
I-98
SLIT
I-99
FIT
I-100
dIT
I-101
I-102
FC
I-103
KC
I-104
LIT
I-105
FIT
I-106
Return fromDigester
Influent
Return fromFilter
Code Description Manufacturer Model Type I/O
I-100 Flow Meter ABB Aquamaster FIT I
I-101 dIT I
I-102 Logic Description
I-103 Flow Control FC O
I-104 Timer Allen-Bradley 700-FE KC O
I-105 Level Indicator Siemens Sitrans Probe LR LIT I
I-85 Sludge Level Indicator Cerlic CBX SLIT I
I-87 Density Meter dIT I
I-90 High-Level Alarm RACO Verbatim LSHL O
I-91 Timer Allen-Bradley 700-FE KC O
I-92 Hand/Off/Auto HS I
I-93 Slude Level Setpoint HS I
I-94 Pumping Delay HS I
I-95 Flow Rate HS I
I-99 Sludge Level Cerlic CBX SLIT I
Control Logic
I-88 and I-102
If Sludge_Blanket_Height > Setpoint
Set Pump 50%
If SDI > 2.5
Set Pump 0%
Set Alarm
Time_Delay()
Control Strategy
WW train
4-20ma signal
Sludge train
Steam
1
1 1
1
03/21/2011 1 Adam Erb
Adam Erb
Adam Erb
21/03/11
9a
4 1
Phase 1 P&ID
Primary Treatment
Alexandra Chan
PIT
I-46

FIT
I-49
DOIT
I-50
FIT
I-52
FIT
I-54
FC
I-55
dIT
I-56
TSS
I-57
TSS
I-58
KC
I-59
Filter
Primary
Digester
SLIT
I-60
DOIT
I-28
I-29
DOIT
I-30
DOIT
I-31
I-32

I-33
PIC
I-34
AB-1/1b
HC
I-35
DO setpoints
HC
I-37
Recycle Ratio
HC
I-38
Wasting Flowrate
HC
I-39
Pump Timing
PD-1
PD-1b
PD-2/2b
Code Description Manufacturer Model Type
I-28 Dissolved Oxygen Meter Danfoss EVITA Oxy DOIT
I-29 Logic Description # # #
I-34 Pressure Indicator - Multi-Channel ABB N-AA PIC
I-35 Hand DO Setpoint HC
I-37 Hand RAS Ratio HC
I-38 Hand Wasting Flowrate HC
I-39 Hand Wasting Timing HC
I-46 Pressure Indicator - Multi-Channel ABB N-AA PIT
I-49 Flow Meter ABB Aquamaster FIT
I-54 Flow Meter ABB Aquamater FIT
I-55 Flow Control FC
I-56 Sludge density meter dIT
I-57 Suspended Solids Meter Royce 7110/20 Continuous Series TSS
I-59 Timing Function # # KC
I-60 Sludge Level Cerlic CBX SLIT
PD-1,2 Sludge Pump Watson-Marlow Brendal Perisatalic PDPump
AB-1 Air pressurizer
I-111 Timing Function KC
I-84 Flow Meter ABB Aquamaster FC
I-53 Level Indicator Siemens Sitrans Probe LR LT
I-140 Alarm RACO Verbatim DHL
MP-2,3 Metering Pump Hayward Gordon DIAPHRAGM METERING PUMPS
M-1 Mixer Hayward Gordon Top Entry Mxier
MP-2
M
-1
MP-3
KC
I-111 FC
I-84
LT
I-53
I-51
Alum
FC
I-112
DHL
I-140
Control Logic
I-14
If Sludge_density < max_density
Set Sludge_flow = Influnt_flow*Ratio
else
Alarm
I-32 & I-33
Feedforward-PI control for aeartion DO levels using cascading control sheme.
I-32 meausures tank DO against setpoint and generates error signal for I-33
I-33 controls pressure against set point by adjusting actuated valve.
I-51
Load mixing tank with alum, mixfor period K, after K pump to aeration tank.
RAS
WAS
Control Strategy
WW train
4-20ma signal
Sludge train
Steam
1
1 1
1
03/21/2011 1 Adam Erb
Adam Erb
Adam Erb
21/03/11
9b
4 2
Phase 1 P&ID
Secondary Treatment
Alexandra Chan
DOIT
I-293
FIT
I-61
FC
I-62

HC
I-63
HS
I-64
I-65
ON/OFF
A/M
FIT
I-66
FC
I-67

HC
I-68
HS
I-69
I-70
ON/OFF
A/M
UV-1/2/3
FC
I-71
UVDIT
I-72
UVC
I-73
HC
I-74
MC
I-75
I-76
KC
I-77
FIT
I-78
FC
I-79

HC
I-80
HS
I-81
I-82
ON/OFF
A/M
FIT
I-83
LC
I-40
LIT
I-42
LC
I-43
LIT
I-44
LC
I-47
LIT
I-45
I-48
Effluent
I-40 Level Control # # LC O
I-61 Flow Indicator ABB Aquamaster FIT I
I-62 Flow Control # # FC O
I-63 Hand Mix Select # # HC I
I-64 Hand Auto/Manual # # HS I
I-68 Hand Manual Mix Select HC I
I-69 Hand Auto/Manual HS I
I-72 UV Dosage Indicator UVDIT I
I-73 UV Control UVC I
I-74 Hand Manual Mix Select # # HC I
I-75 Hand Auto/Manual # # MC I
I-77 Timer Function # # KC O
I-80 Hand Manual Mix Select # # HC I
I-81 Hand Auto/Manual # # HS I
UV-1/2/3 UV Banks Trojan UV3000 Plus O
I-131 Level Indicator Level Indicator Siemens Sitrans Probe LR LIT
I-136 Flow Control
I-135 Flow Control
I-129 Flow Control
I-138 Flow Control
I-132 Flow Control
I-134 Flow Control
AB-1 Air Blower
CP-1 Centifruegal Pump
AS Effluent

FC
I-137
LIT
I-131
I-130
FIT
I-139

FC
I-136

FC
I-135
AB-1

FC
I-132
CP-1
Backwash

FC
I-129
Back to Inlet Works
FIT
I-133
FC
I-134

FC
I-138
Control Logic
I-48
If I-29 > 8000 L/m
Open I-22, I-11,I-2
Else If I-29 > 5000 L/m
Open I-22, I-11
Close I-2
Else
Open I-22
Close I-11, I-2
I-130
If water level is below maximum continue loading.
Periodically close inlet and backwash at interval K.
Control Strategy
WW train
4-20ma signal
Sludge train
Steam
1
1 1
1
03/21/2011 1 Adam Erb
Adam Erb
Adam Erb
21/03/11
9c
4 3
Phase 1 P&ID
Tertiary Treatment
Alexandra Chan
FIT
I-1
FC
I-2
FIT
I-3
FC
I-4
LIT
I-5
PHIT
I-6

V-4

V-3
PD-1
PD-2
PD-4
FIT
I-7 FC
I-8

KC
I-9
HC
I-10
HC
I-11
PD-3
HS
I-12
Timing
ON/OFF
A/M
TIT
I-13
I-14
I-15
I-16
HC
I-17
Setpoint
TC
I-18
LSHL
I-19
FIT
I-20
FC
I-21
PHIT
I-22
LIT
I-23
TIT
I-24
LSHL
I-25
V-1
PIT
I-26
FC
I-27
Gas Infastructure Boiler Hot Water
Sludge fromAS
Sludge from
Clarifier
Primary
V-2
Current
Digesters
Stage1 Additon
CHOPX
I-10 Mixer Timing Hand Select # # HC I
I-11 Manual Mix Select # # HC I
I-12 Auto/Manual # # HS I
I-13 Temperature Indicator Rosemount 664 TT TIT I
I-14 Logic Description # #
I-17 Setpoint Temp # # HC I
I-18 Temp Control TC O
I-22 pH Indicator RosemountModle 398 TUph PHIT I
I-24 Temperature Indicator Rosemount 664 TT TIT I
I-26 Pressure Indicator PIT I
I-6 pH Indicator RosemountModle 398 TUph PHIT I
I-9 Timer Function # # KC O
PD-1,2,3,4 Sludge Pump Watson-Marlow Brendal Perisatalic PDPump O
CHOPX Sludge Recirculation Pump Watson-Marlow Brendal Centrifugal O
V-1,2 Pressure Release Valve O
V-3,4 Sludge Pinch Valve Red Valve O
BP-1 Belt Press PACT DNYA BELT PRESS O
MP-1 Metering Pump Hayward Gordon DIAPHRAGM METERING PUMPS O
PD-1b
PD-2b
CHOPXb
PD-3b
PD-4b
1
1 1
1
BP-1
Belt Press Filter
MP-1
Polymer Tank
Stage1 Additon
Land Application
Control Logic
I-14
If sludge in is available feed digester 1 for period K, and close
digester 2 valve. When K timing is up feed digester 2 and close
digester 1 valve for period K. Totalize both digester sludge inputs
to keep track of loading.
I-15
If level is below maximum, ph is within threshold, continue regular
process and circulate sludge, else sound alarm.
I-16
PI temperature algorithm
Control Strategy
WW train
4-20ma signal
Sludge train
Steam
03/21/2011 1 Adam Erb
Adam Erb Alexandra Chan
Adam Erb
21/03/11
9d
4 4
Phase 1 P&ID
Sludge Treatment
Raw Sewage
Solid Waste
Secondary Digester
Land Application
Boiler
Heat Back to Plant
Primary Digester
Black Creek
Effluent
Secondary
Sedimentation
Primary
Sedimentation
Deep Bed
Filter
RAS
WAS
Alum
Polymer
UV
Treatment
Belt Press
Compressed
Air
Screening
Grit Removal
Activated
Sludge
with BNR
A
n
a
e
ro
b
ic
A
n
o
x
ic
A
e
ro
b
ic
Waste water
Alum
Sludge
Solid Waste
Biogas
Heat
Alum/Polymer Treatment
Compressed Air
1
1 1
1
03/21/2011 1 Adam Erb
Adam Erb
Adam Erb
21/03/11
12
1 1
Phase 2
PFD
Alexandra Chan
Inputs Outputs
PIT
I-267

FIT
I-266
DOIT
I-277
FIT
I-272
FIT
I-287
FC
I-279
dIT
I-264
TSS
I-274
TSS
I-275
KC
I-280
Filter
Primary
Digester
SLIT
I-282
DOIT
I-289
I-278
DOIT
I-276
I-268

I-290
PIC
I-292
HC
I-270
DO setpoints
HC
I-288
Recycle Ratio
HC
I-284
Wasting Flowrate
HC
I-269
Pump Timing
Code Description Manufacturer Model Type
I-34 Pressure Indicator - Multi-Channel ABB N-AA PIC
I-35 Hand DO Setpoint HC
I-37 Hand RAS Ratio HC
I-38 Hand Wasting Flowrate HC
I-39 Hand Wasting Timing HC
I-46 Pressure Indicator - Multi-Channel ABB N-AA PIT
I-54 Flow Meter ABB Aquamater FIT
I-55 Flow Control FC
I-56 Sludge density meter dIT
I-59 Timing Function # # KC
I-60 Sludge Level Cerlic CBX SLIT
PD-1,2 Sludge Pump Watson-Marlow Brendal Perisatalic PD Pump
AB-1 Air pressurizer
I-111 Timing Function KC
I-84 Flow Meter ABB Aquamaster FC
I-53 Level Indicator Siemens Sitrans Probe LR LT
I-140 Alarm RACO Verbatim DHL
MP-2,3 Metering Pump Hayward Gordon DIAPHRAGM METERING PUMPS
M-1 Mixer Hayward Gordon Top Entry Mxier
CP-5 Internal Recycle Pump
M-2 Anearobic Phase Mixer
M
-1
KC
I-285 FC
I-265
LT
I-283
I-271
Alum
FC
I-281
DHL
I-273
RAS
WAS
I-291
Control Strategy
WW train
4-20ma signal
Sludge train
Steam
1
1 1
1
03/21/2011 1 Adam Erb
Adam Erb
Adam Erb
21/03/11
13
1 1
Phase 2 P&ID
Changes
Alexandra Chan
A
n
a
e
r
o
b
ic
A
n
o
x
ic
CP-5
Internal Recycle
M-2

Weftec SDC 2011 Acton Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion Team University of Guelph Full PDF

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Weftec SDC 2011 Acton Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion Team University of Guelph Full PDF

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

WEF STUDENT DESIGN COMPETITION 2011

software monitoring package; in the expansion of the Acton plant, care

BOD model was used, which is based on the Lessard and

has similar dynamics equations to the primary.

schematic can be seen below in Figure 7.

Você também pode gostar